Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Leases (Requirement of Rent (In Street v Mountford, Lord Templeman said…

- - - - Liverpool CC v Irwin [1977]: Implied duty of care for safety
      - Sharpe v Manchester CC (1981): Liability in negligence
  - - - The house is fit for human habitation at the commencement of the tenancy
      - The house will be kept by the landlord fit for habitation
    - - To keep in repair the structure and interior
      - To keep in repair and proper working order, installations for the supply of water, gas and electricity, facilities for sanitation and installations for space heating and heated water
- - - - Single agreement will suggest a lease, whilst separate agreements will suggest a licence
    - - Agreements were made separately and so only a license was held and not a lease
    - - Agreements made on same day and had same substance so a lease existed, despite the contract claiming to only be a license
- - - - Lease for a fixed, definite duration that terminates automatically at the end of the period
      - No question that this period is certain and so requirement is fulfilled
    - - Tenancy runs from one period until the next until terminated by notice
      - Term may be a week, moth, year etc.
      - This is sufficient to fulfill the requirement, as the term is certain and it doesn't matter how long the term rolls over for
    - - Lace v Chantler [1944]
        
        Parties agreed to lease land until the war was over, but as no-one knew how long this would be, there was no term certain and thus no tenancy
      - Prudential Assurance v London Residuary Body [1992]
        
        Agreed to let a strip of land, until the land was needed for road widening
        
        Road was never widened
        
        Court said there was no fixed term tenancy, but there was a periodic tenancy as there was exclusive possession and a regular rent was paid
      - Mexfield Housing v Berrisford [2011
        
        Tenant in a housing trust had a tenancy running from month to month, but there was no term to allow either party to end the agreement
        
        SC said there was not a periodic tenancy as the term was uncertain, despite there being a monthly rent and exclusive possession
        
        However, SC held there was a life tenancy and awarded a 90 year lease that was determinable upon death