Does A have a lease?

Definition As per s 1(b) of the LPA 1925 leases are an estate in land this gives leaseholders a propriteary
interest in land unlike licesees who merely have personal rights in relation to the land.
Street v Mountford defines a leaae as an arrangement that gives person the (1) right of exclusive
posession of land (2) for a fixed term (3) at rent. Exclusive Posession
If there is no EP all you have is a license, so is there LP. Whether there is EP is a question of fact
to be detrmined by refenced to the surrounding circumstances. Though Street v Mountford
originally envisioned these two categories of occupants would be easily distinguishable on the
basis that all those who received services such as cleaning and food were lodgers and the rest
unless falling in to a Faccini exception were tennants as the discussion below shows some glosses
have been added, and it is now harder to distinguish between the categories.
Street v Mountford overuling Somma v Hazlehurst has decided it is not the intention of the
parties that matter but the substance of the rights they have created by the agreement. As such
even if the agreement reffers to a license if it is susbtantively a lease the court will treat is as such
Exceptions
Cases in which the right to exclusive possesion can be explained by reference to some other
relationship between the parties
- Friendship where there is no intention to create leagal relations - Facini v Bryson
- Service type agreements - Facini v Bryson
- Charities - Gray v Taylor
- Mortgagee going in to posession Street v Mountford
- Mehta v Royal Scotland Bank hotel owner v guest.
Examination of the susbstance of the rights

- A mere promise to provide services such as cleaning and food is not enough it must be provided
Markou v De Silvaesa

- Multiple Occupants can still be said to have EP if they can show the 4 unities are present. - AG
Securities v Vaughan

- Deliberate attempts to artificially breakup the unities will not be allowed by the courts (time,
interest, posession, title) - AG Securities v Vaughan

- Retention of a key by itself does not mean there is no lease - Aslan v Murphy
- Where the landlord has inserted a clause in to the agreement reserving a right to make use of
-

the premises such that there will be no EP. Antoniades Villiers

However if the term is a sham device the court will ignore it. It is a sham device if neither party
inends to rely on it. A pretence may be established by examination of the surrounding
circumstances and confirmed by the subsequent practices of the parties. - Anotniades v
Villiers
Also remember terms which are compatible with the terms of the lease will not destroy EP eg it
is expected under a leae that the landlord will have the right to enter the premies in order to
inspect and carry out reparis
Bruton has also held that the abseces of an estate in the intermediate landlord is not destructive
of the occupiers non propritery lease. the test for a lease was exclusive posession and not the
prior existence of an estate in the landlord.
Kay v Lamberth Bruton Leases are not propritary rights

Bruton Type Leases Special discussion

Initially it was suggested that the identity of the leasor mattered. In cases such as Gray v Taylor or
Westminister CC v Clarke no lease was found as to do otherwise would hinder the performance
of their important public and social functions.
This view was however challenged in Bruton v London Quadrant Housing Trust despite
concerns such as those expressed in Mehta v Royal Scotland Bank that the identity of the leasor

could help tell whether it was a genuine attempt to grant a lease or a sham device. Since then 2
appeal court cases including Kay v Lamberth have followed this decision. Dixon therfore aruges
that while it would be a mistake to regard Bruton as authority for destruction of the distinction
between lease and licesne its use to crate a contract of tennancy between the partoes where
where they have some of the attributies of land lord and tennant cannot be discounted.
A Term Certain
Must be for a certain period of time i.e end and start date.
It does not matter if the lease can be brought to an end before the maximim period ends so long as
there is a maximum period
Eg Lace v Chandler - till end of WW II void cox maximum period not known
Glosses
1. Berrisford v Mexfield: Lease granted to individual (not company) for an uncertain term can be
converted in to a certain term lease by the following steps
Step One: Apply old common law rule which converts all leaes granted to an individual for an
uncertain term in to a lease for life.
Step Two: Apply s149(6) of the LPA 1925 which converses all life leases in to a lease for 90
years terminable by death (which ever comes first)
2. Periodic Tennancies - Prudential Assuarance v London Residuary Body
- Used where there is uncertanity about how many terms there will be.
- Where a tennant occupies a land and pays rent to the land lord there will be a lease, the
duration of which will be determined by reference to facts Eg pays once a week 1 week
tennancy.
Each new period is a new lease in essence and because of this if each period is under 3 years
it may even be a legal lease because as per s 54(2) an oral lease for a term of less than 3
years is a legal lease.
Rent
- Strictly speaking no rent needed - because s205(1)(27) pf the the LPA 1925 states that a term of
years means a term of years whether at rent or not.
- However in relity in the premuption of rent is so strong in abscense of an express covenant to
pay rent it will be implied from the words of the deed
- Similarly where the obligation has been expressly excluded it may in the abscense of other
hallmarks of a tennancy such as obligation to repair indicate there is no tennancy just a license
- fact that the partoes choose to discribe periodic payment as an occupation fee or licese fee does
not prevent from it amounting to rent in law.
- Bostock v Bryand Rent does not have to be in monetary form. only requirement is rent must
be capable ofbeing rendered certain so fluctuating utility bills will not count.
- Ashburn Anstalt v Arnolds if rent is payable and it is in arreas it does not mean there is no
tennancy. Merely that the tennant is in arreas
What kind of lease is it?
Legal lease or Equitable Lease?
Registered Land
For a lease to be legal it must be
(1) created by deed. - s1 LP (MP) A1989) and registered if the lease is for more than 7 years s 27
LRA 2002
(2) LPA s54(2) Oral agreements to lease for less than 3 years are also legal if the rent is for a
market value Fitzkristen v Panayi 2008, there is immediate posession and there is not fine ie no
lump sum payment,
Equitable if created by written contract s2 LP (MP) A
Unregistered Land
Deed - Legal s1 LP (MP) A 1989
Contract s2(LP)A 1989

Protection Agaisnt third parties for value

Registered Equitable leaes are protected under sch 3 para 2 as overriding intersts actul occupation
Unregistered Equitable leases only if they are in registred as class C (iv) interest as per the LCA
1972 requirements.
Other Statutory Provisions Governing Certain Terms
A lease that is granting the tennant the right to perpetually renew his or her term will converted in to
a lease of 2000 years. As per Schedule 15 section 145 of the LPA
- Lease that are intended to start more than 21 years after the instrument creating it are void as
per s149(3)