lOMoARcPSD|3963537

Leases final PQ layout - Summary Land Law

Land Law (University of Bristol)

StuDocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

Downloaded by Thomas Smith (tommygun1315@gmail.com)
 lOMoARcPSD|3963537

LEASES

LEASES PQ
1. WHO ARE THE PARTIES?
2. WHICH ESTATES/INTERESTS?

Requirements for a lease set out in Street v Mountford:

 RENT
 Ashburn Ansalt v Arnold-rent is not essential for a lease. LJ fox “whether or
not at a rent “ s205 (1)(xxvii)LPA. Templeman “hallmarks of a lease”
 Skipton Bs v Clayton- CoA held lease w/o rent.

 TERM
 Need a certain start date, fixed & certain max duration.
 Lace v Chantler- “duration of the war” was not sufficiently certain
 Prudential Assurance- lease until “road required for widening” not certain
enough.
 RECENT DEVELOPMENT- Mexfield- Co-op gives houses on a secure basis so
could live there for life. Supreme court found uncertain term- “lease for life”
to be 90 years s.149(6) LPA 1925. Co-operative- think MEXFIELD- L4L. but
only if scheme gives you lease for life.

 EXCLUSIVE POSESSION
 This distinguishes lease and licence.
 Street v Mountford- called it licence agreement. Templeman said it doesn’t
matter what you call it,if you have criteria for lease, it’s a lease. If it’s a
license, you do NOT have security of tenure (s.5 & s.10 Housing Act)
 Aslan v Murphy- “licence agreement”, lisensor retained keys, had power to
introduce another “licensee”- Lord Donaldson “wholly unrealistic pretences”.
Landlord canhave key-EP=lease. HOWEVER, if genuine services-licence.
 Westminster CC v Clarke- curfew, couldn’t choose room- no EP. Hostel which
contained 31 single rooms for housing homeless men. Mr Clarke occupied a
room by an agreement which stated the council could change the
accommodation without notice and require Mr Clarke to share the room with
other homeless people.

SHARING:

 Antoniades- clause said could invite others to share (16- to prevent EP), “living
as husband and wife”. Had never allowed any other occupant into flat-lease.
 AG securities v Vaughan- 4 occupant flat sharing, different agreements, each
pay own rent, not joint tenancy, was a lease, all sharing, but independently of
eachother.

NON-PROPRIETARY LEASE:

 Bruton v LQHT- Lambeth BC granted license to LQHT. Permitted them to

provide accommodation for homeless. Bruton claimed his agreement with the
trust was more like a tenancy. Bruton had rent, term, EP. Was held you

Downloaded by Thomas Smith (tommygun1315@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|3963537

LEASES
COULD have a tenency, even though LQHT had no estate in land.Non-
proprietary lease. Hoffman “contractually binding agreement”
 Kay- held if you have a lease from a licence and the licensee goes- YOU DO
NOT HAVE A LEASE and you are a trespasser.

EXPIRY:

 Fixed term- on expiry unless break in clause

Notice to quit:

 Periodic tenancy land lords give notice, s.8 Housing Act.

 Joint periodic tenancy- notice to quit by one tenant = effective on all.
Hammersmith v Monk

3. LEGAL OR EQUITABLE? (FORMALITIES)

 Deed s.52 LPA

 What is a deed s.1 LP(MP) 1989- “validly executed” “clear on it’s face it’s
intended to be a deed”
 EXCEPTION- don’t need a deed if lease is under 3 YEARS s.54(2), as long as
there is “best rent” will still be a legal lease.
 If NO DEED and OVER 3 years can still be an equitable lease- Walsh v Londsdale.

REGISTRATION

4. HAVE THE FORMALITIES BEEN MET? (ARE THEY LEGAL OR EQUITABLE)

If YES- are they “registrable dispositions”? S.27 LRA

 Sale
 Lease over 7 years
 Easement
 Mortgage

5. IF THERE ARE COMPETING INTERESTS WHICH TAKE PRIORITY?

Was there “valuable consideration”?

 YES- first registered takes priority s.29

 NO- first created takes priority s.28

6. IS IT OVERRIDING? SCHEDULE 3

 Legal lease under 7 years sch 3 para 1

 Actual occupation- Boland beneficial interest & actual occupation ( “a degree of
permanence and conitunitity”- Cann) sch 3 para 2

Downloaded by Thomas Smith (tommygun1315@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|3963537

LEASES

LEASES ESSAYS:

IS IT TRUE THAT A LEASE IS ALWAYS AN ESTATE IN LAND?

NO, a lease does not always amount to an estate in land.

 SvM says lease = estate when sets out defining criteria: Mrs. Mountford having entered into
possession and made weekly payments acquired a legal estate in land. If the agreement is a
tenancy, the occupation of Mrs. Mountford is protected by the Rent Acts. License is not an
estate.

 Bruton non-estate lease – if you have criteria for lease, it’s a lease, even though his landlord
only has a license.Millet LJ in CoA- emphasized the need to have exclusive possession to be
able to GIVE exlcusive possession. So LQHT could not give EP to Bruton. Lord Hoffman
disagreed in HoL- distinguished between contrautal and property analysis of leases by saying
“the term “lease” and “tenancy” describes relationship between two parties who are
designated land lord and tenant.” but Kay?) Kay provides a way out ( revoke the license),
doesn’t overrule Bruton – it’s still good law (and see Mexfield approval by Lord Neuberger-
so you CAN have a lease without an estate)

 Hammersmith v Monk/Sims v Dacorum – notice to quit by one of joint tenants is effective on

all, doesn’t infringe human rights -Contract analysis prevailed over property – so alternative
to estate? H v M- property analysis would say he had the flat, he had a leasehold estate, so
that his property. Contract argument would be since she has left, she has severed it. A
contract analysis situation argued to fit this situation better- so don’t need

 Mexfield ” Could have been a lease even if no estate”, Lady Hale (para 108)

ARE LEASES CONTRACT OR PROPERTY?

 S v M says it’s an estate
 Bruton much more contractual analysis- (a non-estate lease) much more like a contract- kay
is a way out- you have revoke the licence - but not overrules Bruton an upheld in mexfield
 H v M, S v d

LEASE LICENCE DISTINCTION STILL VIABLE?

 Licence does not create a proprietary right. Street v Mountford Lord Templeman “ A licence
does not create an estate in land, only makes an act lawful which would otherwise be
unlawful”
 Antoniades clause said could invite others to share (16- to prevent EP), “living as husband
and wife”. Had never allowed any other occupant into flat-lease. Just cos agreement SAYS
licence- doesn’t mean it is a licence.
 Hallmarks of a lease - SvM

Downloaded by Thomas Smith (tommygun1315@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|3963537

LEASES
 AG Securities v Vaughan Oliver LJ “is this a sham” - but in this case the clause was actually
exercised, indicating it was not a mere pretence. Clause in agreement stated a maximum of
three other people could be introduced to share with the licensee. Strangers, didn’t know
each other- not like Antoniades.
 Aslan v Murphy a “licence agreement” was held to be a lease. Key influence behind the
decision was the nature of the accommodation. Basement room 4ft3 by 12ft6- ability of the
“licensor” to introduce other to share with the occupant was clearly not operational
 Clarke and Westminster

WHAT IS A LEASE AND DO JUDGES AGREE?

 What is a lease? 3 requirements- do judges agree?
 Hammersmith v Monk- seems to be taking more of a contractual analysis.

Why don’t they agree?

 Bruton is different, unusual, had not seen before

 Mexfield is confusing- Co-op gives houses on a secure basis so could live there for life.
Supreme court found uncertain term- “lease for life” to be 90 years s.149 (6) LPA 1925.
Supreme Court COULD have decided to CHANGE the law, so would be possible to create
leases for an uncertain time. MAIN reason why the Supreme Court didn’t- expressed by Lord
Neuberger- certainty of term is NEEDED. Neuberger referred to Lord Browne-Wilkinson’s not
“very attractive” point in Prudential, that changing the law “might upset long established
titles”- ALSO NOT AFFECT ONLY FUTURE LEASES, BUT PRESENT ONES TOO. Law Comm “
investigation into uncertainty rule is not a government priority”- Bright, S- the uncertainty of
certainty in leases 2012


Downloaded by Thomas Smith (tommygun1315@gmail.com)