Issue of who is responsible for repairs - LTA 1985 - if have lease to which this applies, landlord has responsibility for certain repairs

Before this Sommer v Hazelhurst was applied - documentation used indicates intentions of parties

Also said payment of rent was required - s205 (xxvii) LPA 1925 - Ashburn Astalt v Arnold (1989)

Prudential Insurance Co Ltd v London Residurary Body (1992) - don't need exact term, just need to know maximum

Berrisford v Mexfield Housing Co-operative (2011) - leases for life converted to 90 years ending at death - s149(6) LPA 1925

Break clauses/forefeiture clauses - enable one or another party to bring to an end - don't offend fixed term rule because know maximum duration from outset

Hammond v Farrow (1904) - measured by agreed mode of payment - weekly, monthly, quarterly

Or implied - Prudential v London Residuary Body - move in and start paying

Retention of key - Aslan v Murphy (1989) - distinguish restricted/unrestricted access - aka is it just used for making reparings.emergencies or used everyday - is it used at all

Antoniades - unmarried couple - given separate identical agreements called licences - clauses allowing sharing and introduction - but one roomed apartment - 'air of complete unreality' - held did have exclusive possession 'despite landlord's best efforts to create a smoke screen'

AG Securities - large flat - four bedrooms and several lounges - clause reserved right to introduce others - held genuine and defeating exclusive possession - people living there didn't know each other before moving in - different people moving in and out - lockable rooms - clause had limit of four - right was exercised - when people left landlord asked current occupants if they knew anyone - then advertised

Lodgers/provision of services - Markou v da Silvesa (1986) - if genuine and extensive - some landlords say will provide but never do

Step 1 - do occupants collectively have exclusive possession - if not, then licences only - analysis of arrangement between occupiers and outside world - not between each other

Interest - everybody holding same property - aka leasehold for two years - whether landlord intends them to be jointly liable

AG Securities v Vaughan/Antoniades v Villiers - in Antoniades had identical agreements - never intended to b individually liable - came together - would be both or neither

Mikeover Ltd v Brady (1989) - couple genuinely intended to pay half each - landlord intended to receive payment in this way - when she left he couldn't stay and pay all