Exam (elaborations)
Land Law Leases problem exam answer
- Course
- Institution
These meticulously prepared answers on Leases have been instrumental in propelling me to secure a First Class in my exams.
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
hurulain
Content preview
Land Law Exam 2022 - LeasesJan and Karl
What rights do J and K have if they enter into this agreement? Lease or merely a
licence? In Street v Mountford, Lord Templeman set out the requirements of a
valid LEASE ; 1) exclusive possession, 2) fixed term and 3) rent (either a one off
payment or paid periodically)
J and K were given one document to sign and as such, this would be a joint lease
that both of them would have. Whenever an occupier is granted Exclusive
Possession of residential accommodation for a fixed or periodic term at a stated
rent, there is a presumption of a tenancy, however Special circumstances might
rebut that presumption of a lease.
Provision of services, O’s close friend will make sure there is a constant delivery of
groceries and fresh towels every Sunday morning. Provision of services is likely to
be indicative of a lodger relationship and will generally prevent a finding of
exclusive occupation as per Marchant, Crancour v Da Silvaesa. Contrast to Aslan
v Murphy, The provisions relating to exclusive ownership, agreement of services
allowing others to use the room, retention of keys and service provisions were all
a pretence designed to get around the Rent Act. The retainment of key by Mr
Aslan will not automatically negate exclusive possession. Here, the agreement
which reserved O the right to retain keys and the service by O’s close friend will
not automatically negate exclusive possession. Jan told Oliver after the first week
of living in the house that they preferred the groceries and towels to be put
outside on the back step on Sunday. As a result, J and K are said to have had
exclusive ownership of the land in reality. Similarly in Antoniades v Villiers, The
clause is a sham and the couple were held to be tenants in joint possession. The
occupants had exclusive possession of the property in practice. Whereas in AG
Securities v Vaughan, HOL Held The occupants only had licences as Each occupant
, had exclusive possession over their own bedroom at most, but not the communal
bathroom, kitchen, living-room, etc.
Family; Oliver allowed his stepdaughter, Jan, which is technically his family. David
v Lewisham,Because there was evidence of lack of intent, the putative lease to
the daughter and son-in-law was deemed to be a mere licence.
Friendship; O’s stepdaughter’s friend, Karl. In Marcroft, The landlord had
permitted the former tenant's daughter to remain in the apartment after her
mother died as a gesture of kindness, as a result, the agreement was a licence
rather than a lease.
Facchini v Bryson, obiter, In every case where an occupier was found to be a
licensee, there was something in the circumstances to negate any purpose to
create a tenancy, such as a family arrangement, an act of kindness or generosity,
or something similar. In such circumstances, it would be clearly unjust to impose a
tenancy on the owner, with all the significant ramifications that this entails
presently, when there was no purpose to do so in the first place.
However Since J and K pays quite a bit of money, it may be argued that this is not
an act of generosity. if so, J and K has a lease
Service occupancy ; Where the occupation arises through employment, this is
likely to create a licence as opposed to a tenancy. Jan and Karl have been working
for Oliver, as his housekeeper and gardener respectively. To determine if an
occupation is one of service, the test to apply is whether the servant is required to
occupy premises in order to better perform his duties as a servant
If the terms of the employment do not require the servant to reside in the
premises, a lease may be granted. Applying Facchini, if J and K did not occupy the
house for the better performance of their duties , then it is not a service
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller hurulain. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $9.63. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
56326 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now