I would say that the provisions of that part were simply a natural consequences of the developments. This assignment will consider the case of street v mountford and consider the decision and speech of lord templeman and analyse whether or not the correct conclusions were reached. If the latter, it is arguable that part i of the housing act 1988 is a direct consequence of street v mountford though personally i would disagree. And, this was the time taken by the housein street v. Law prior to street v mountford in the case of lynes v snaith 1989 1 qb 486 that courts decided that the fact that the defendant had exclusive possession of the property concerned, was indicative of the presence of a lease and not merely a licence. Case analysis of street v mountford read street v mountford 1985 ac 809 lord templemans judgement and answer the following questions. Payment of rent whilst street v mountford 1985 ac 809 case summary refers to the requirement of rent to create a tenancy this is not always strictly enforced.
Street v mountford 1985 ac 809 united kingdom house. In afxt the flat was so small that it could nt bshared and ths th wordig was a sham. The decision of the house of lords in street v mountford in 1985 represented a seachange in the approach of the courts smith r, property law 6th edition 2009 p. This mattered for the purpose of statutory tenant rights to a reasonable rent, and had a wider significance as a lease had proprietary status and would bind third parties. Payment of rent whilst street v mountford 1985 ac 809 case. The six most important elements of a tenancy or lease. Other arrangements that may be encountered which are not grazing licences include profits a prendre. This means there must be an identifiable start date and there must be certainty as to the duration of the lease. The assignment will then go on to consider the implications of the case and its. I remember it well, as the day after the report was published in the times my firm had a case on exactly the same point listed for hearing. There is a very important house of lords decision in a case called street v. Manford occupying part of a house and paying money to mr. Where no commencement date is specified in the agreement, it will not create a valid lease.
It set out principles to determine whether someone who occupied a property had a tenancy i. Bruton v london and quadrant housing trust wikipedia. Brief discussion of the house of lords judgment in street v mountford. In street it was conceded by the parties that tonys. Street v mountford 1985 ukhl 4 is an english land law case from the house of lords.
Mountford the right to occupythe furnished rooms numbers 5 and 6 at 5 st. Decision of the house of lords in street v mountford the decision of the house of lords in street v mountford in 1985 represented a seachange in the approach of the courts smith r, property law 6th edition 2009 p. The case would likely be decided differently now, since the decision in street v mountford 1985 for discussion on the leases vs licences debate, visit land law notes on leases related case shami v shami 20. It was, however, recognised that there may be other, surrounding circumstances which. Where the contract so negotiated contains not merely a label, but a clause that sets out in unequivocal terms the parties. According to street v mountford 1985 ac 809 case summary, to create a lease the grant must be for a certain period of time. In street v mountford, three hallmarks of a tenancy were identified.
Street had mountford sign a declaration that the right to occupy constituted a licence and not a lease. Bruton v london and quadrant housing trust 1999 ukhl 26 is an english land law case that examined the rights of a tenant in a situation where the landlord, a charitable housing association had no authority to grant a tenancy, but in which the tenant sought to enforce the duty to repair on the association implied under landlord and tenant statutes. Lord hoffmann, in the taking address, cited street v mountford as set uping that a rental, or occupancy, was a contractually binding understanding, non ascribable to any other relationship, giving a right to sole business for a fixed or renewable period, normally in return for a periodic payment. The document also includes supporting commentary from author aruna nair. There wa sa tiny flat and the agreemnt said it was a licence an that the person ahd to allow others to share the flat at the diecriton of the landlord. By an agreement dated 7 march 1983, the respondent mr.
Clyne v the new south wales bar association 1960 104 clr 186 duration. Critically analyse the impact of the decision of the house of lords in street v mountford 1985 ac 809. On studocu you find all the study guides, past exams and lecture notes you need to pass your exams with better grades. Ihtm24074 inheritance tax manual hmrc internal manual. Street v mountford 1985 case summary webstroke law.
Lord templemans judgment in street v mountford 1985 a. The decision of the house of lords in street v mountford 1985 ac 809 is treated as the touchstone authority on how one differentiates between a lease and a licence. It was widely discussed in legal circles, with the landlord himself joining in the debate. The starting point is always to determine whether exclusive possession has been granted by examining the rights and obligations of the parties. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in street v mountford 1985 ac 809, house of lords. That case was about the difference between a license and a tenancy. Discuss in the context of the courts approach to the distinction between leases and licences. A person who has exclusive possession is a tenant, not a licensee. Street v mountford 1985 ac 809 gives a good exposition of the law in this area. Five equity, trust and land law cases you should know. Ashburn anstalt v arnold , the court of appeal subsequently held in a more up to date case that the right to receive rent is not a necessary. Land law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. Characteristics street v mountford parties can not turn a tenancy into a license merely by calling it one the substance of the agreement, rather than the way in which it expresses is important. Openlearn works with other organisations by providing free courses and resources that support our mission of opening up educational opportunities to more.
In street itself, this mattered because of the protection afforded to tenants but not to licensees by the rent acts. Decision of the house of lords in street v mountford. On the other hand the house oflords can take as little as two months. The seminal case on the distinction between leases and licences is the 1985 case of street v mountford which identified the three distinguishing features of a lease as. In street v mountford lord templeman appears to say rent is nessecary, however section 2051xxvii of the law on property act 1925 talks about a term of years whether or not at a rent. It provided clarity as to the factors that distinguish the lease from the contractual licence. Street v mountford 1985 ac 809, house of lords law trove. Street granted mountford the right to occupy two rooms in his house, with exclusive possession, for a weekly rent and determinable on 14 days notice. On the other hand, the fact remains that this was a contract negotiated between two substantial parties of equal bargaining power and with the benefit of full legal advice.1045 1214 1134 1400 1274 813 1267 201 445 541 980 503 810 36 1145 321 1189 1336 1486 438 1327 348 764 467 1516 866 362 1480 518 1237 142 31 1083 1442 829 68