Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Lanlord and Tenant (Residential Tenancies Acts (part 4 tenancies (once 6…
Lanlord and Tenant
-
Termination after 6 monts #
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Right to new tenancies
business equity
gaiten motor company caretaker agreement, would have retained possession otherwise
fitzmaurice couldn't easily avoid legislation, CSO not operable, not valid
2008 and 1994 act can be only got of if in writing and need to show tenant had independent legal advice
improvements equity
if you made improvements and value of compensation is worth about half the letting value then you are entitled to a new tenancy
may be disqualified if terminated for good and sufficient reason (landlord) or for breaching a term of the lase
-
-
License v Lease
License
-
-
-
Irish Shell v Costello garage owned by Irish shell, owner of premises no access to premises, inspection once a month - exclusive occupation presumed - payments were basically payments - reality was a tenant agreement
smith v Iarnod Eireann agreement with clause (no intention to create tenancy), didn't want the automatic renewal after 3 years - didn't want to enter into anything long term - there was exclusive possession - control of premises and stock
Lease
exclusive occupation
O'Siochain v O'Mahony, exclusive possession not enough to create a tenancy, needed other factors such as rent
Gaiten Motor Co v Continental Oil occupier of premises would have been entitled after 3 years occupation for a renewal, caretaker agreement - no tenancy despite exclusive possession, lack of rent payment for caretkaer period
Residential
courts more sympathetic to residential, seen as more vulnerable
Street v Mountford - landlord entered into agreement with plaintiff, rent was paid but said it was a personal license, notice terminated with 14 days notice - courts said it was a lease
AG Securities v Vaughan no exclusive possession, occupants of 4 bedroom flat entered seperate agreements at different times, different payments, all called licenses - court held no exclusive possession - signed at different times so not joint tenants
Villiers separate agreements signed by a couple, clauses that landlord could move in anytime -- court held that clauses purpose was to avoid legislation - the two agreements were basically the one document
Westminster v Clarke clause denied exlcusie possession was valid, had to be enforceable - hostel for homeless, occupier retained right to enter room
other factors
rent, landlord and tenant covenants
Rent
-
-
Bellew v Bellew - no rent reserved, a licence was granted
-
-
Dispute resolution
-
legislation very detailed, tries to capture all possible scenarios
-
subletting
-
in principal creates new contract between and sub tenant, governed by any act like any other lease
-