200:, N1, and then let it out to Mr Brady and Miss Guile. They each signed separate but identical 'licence' agreements allowing them to share for six months for £86.66 a month. After the sixth months expired they were allowed to remain on the same terms. Miss Guile moved out early 1986, telling Mr Ferster, the Mikeover Ltd director, in April 1986. Mr Brady offered to continue to pay £173.32 in rent. Mr Ferster replied 'I can't accept it. I'll hold you responsible for your share only.' But Mr Brady still fell into arrears for his half, and Mikeover Ltd tried to remove him in early 1987. He claimed he had a lease of the flat to get
28:
238:"The three licences were in substance and reality just what they purported to be. The right, specifically given under each of termination on 28 days' notice by either side, and the provision whereby each was responsible only for a specific sum which was in fact one third of the total required by the landlord, are wholly inconsistent with a joint tenancy."
219:
obligations were not joint. There was no sham. It was established that there must be the four unities present, of possession, interest, title and time, and there was no unity of interest because there was only a several obligation for payment of the rent. That requires the existence of 'joint rights and joint obligations'.
218:
held they had only licences. There was exclusive possession in common with the other occupier, but there was no unity of interest, and no joint tenancy, and the limitation on payments to their own shares was pivotal. This meant the arrangements were incapable of creating a joint tenancy because the
142:
Held: These two agreements...were incapable in law of creating a joint tenancy, because the monetary obligations of the two parties were not joint obligations and there was accordingly no complete unity of interest. It follows that there was no joint tenancy. Since inter se Miss Guile and the
143:
defendant had no power to exclude each other from occupation of any part of the premises, it also follows that their respective several rights can never have been greater than those of licensees during the period of their joint occupation
184:. Here a licence was confirmed and upheld where two former co-habitees had fallen out and separated; removing from the remaining licensee, in arrears, the extra time to remain afforded by the old
255:
Academic critque published by journal: it is not clear why there is a requirement for a genuine (factual) joint tenancy , when there is no such requirement for having a freehold together.
608:
242:
The entire inconsistency with a joint tenancy of a provision rendering each licensee responsible only for one third of the total required by the landlord was, as we read
470:
603:
459:
332:
482:
358:
598:
78:
348:
325:
398:
376:
448:
60:
387:
318:
292:
533:
230:
367:
528:
409:
299:
493:
215:
130:
523:
504:
420:
173:
27:
72:
431:
558:
91:
592:
185:
569:*Sparkes, ‘Co-Tenants, Joint Tenants and Tenants in Common’ (1989) 18 AALR 151, 155:
437:
246:, part of the essential reasoning which led this court to its final decision.
32:
An eviction notice (which will have been posted or process-served per rules)
508:
201:
579:
181:
512:
277:
Obiter dictum of Lord
Templeman and Obiter dictum of Lord Jauncey in
197:
177:
310:
66:
314:
233:
with whose judgment Fox LJ and Sir Denys
Buckley agreed, said:
107:
Appellant also lost in the court below, first instance
155:
147:
136:
124:
119:
111:
103:
98:
87:
53:
45:
37:
20:
180:, specifically a standard tenancy as opposed to a
188:type tenancies which he hoped to benefit from.
326:
222:Following devoutly the likewise 1989 case of
8:
472:Bruton v London & Quadrant Housing Trust
333:
319:
311:
207:County Court held they had only licences.
196:Mikeover Ltd had leased 179 Southgate Rd,
26:
17:
609:Court of Appeal (England and Wales) cases
580:"Index card Mikeover Ltd v Brady - ICLR"
554:
552:
550:
548:
544:
460:Prudential Ltd v London Residuary Body
7:
483:European Convention on Human Rights
176:case, concerning the definition of
267:(EWCA, March 15, 1989, unreported)
14:
359:Protection from Eviction Act 1977
604:1989 in United Kingdom case law
1:
259:Cases approved and followed
625:
349:Land Registration Act 2002
501:
490:
480:
467:
456:
445:
428:
417:
406:
395:
384:
374:
365:
356:
346:
160:
141:
25:
559:HTML Version of Judgment
399:Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold
377:Law of Property Act 1925
92:HTML Version of Judgment
485:art 8 and Prot 1, art 1
449:AG Securities v Vaughan
248:
599:English land case law
388:Errington v Errington
379:ss 1 and 205(1)(xvii)
293:Antoniades v Villiers
228:
534:English property law
169:Mikeover Ltd v Brady
21:Mikeover Ltd v Brady
368:Family Law Act 1996
286:Cases distinguished
265:Stribling v Wickham
244:Stribling v Wickham
529:English trusts law
410:Street v Mountford
300:Street v Mountford
226:, Slade LJ added:
519:
518:
494:Kay v Lambeth LBC
341:Sources on leases
272:Precedent applied
165:
164:
128:Anthony Lincoln J
112:Subsequent action
616:
584:
583:
576:
570:
567:
561:
556:
524:English land law
505:English land law
473:
421:Mikeover v Brady
335:
328:
321:
312:
174:English land law
120:Court membership
68:
30:
18:
624:
623:
619:
618:
617:
615:
614:
613:
589:
588:
587:
578:
577:
573:
568:
564:
557:
546:
542:
520:
515:
497:
486:
476:
471:
463:
452:
441:
424:
413:
402:
391:
380:
370:
361:
352:
342:
339:
309:
288:
274:
261:
253:
234:
213:
194:
129:
82:
76:
70:
64:
58:
41:Court of Appeal
33:
12:
11:
5:
622:
620:
612:
611:
606:
601:
591:
590:
586:
585:
571:
562:
543:
541:
538:
537:
536:
531:
526:
517:
516:
502:
499:
498:
491:
488:
487:
481:
478:
477:
468:
465:
464:
457:
454:
453:
446:
443:
442:
432:Aslan v Murphy
429:
426:
425:
418:
415:
414:
407:
404:
403:
396:
393:
392:
385:
382:
381:
375:
372:
371:
366:
363:
362:
357:
354:
353:
347:
344:
343:
340:
338:
337:
330:
323:
315:
308:
305:
304:
303:
296:
287:
284:
283:
282:
273:
270:
269:
268:
260:
257:
252:
249:
240:
239:
212:
209:
193:
190:
163:
162:
158:
157:
153:
152:
149:
145:
144:
139:
138:
134:
133:
126:
125:Judges sitting
122:
121:
117:
116:
113:
109:
108:
105:
101:
100:
96:
95:
89:
85:
84:
55:
51:
50:
47:
43:
42:
39:
35:
34:
31:
23:
22:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
621:
610:
607:
605:
602:
600:
597:
596:
594:
581:
575:
572:
566:
563:
560:
555:
553:
551:
549:
545:
539:
535:
532:
530:
527:
525:
522:
521:
514:
510:
506:
500:
496:
495:
489:
484:
479:
475:
474:
466:
462:
461:
455:
451:
450:
444:
440:
439:
434:
433:
427:
423:
422:
416:
412:
411:
405:
401:
400:
394:
390:
389:
383:
378:
373:
369:
364:
360:
355:
350:
345:
336:
331:
329:
324:
322:
317:
316:
313:
306:
302:
301:
297:
295:
294:
290:
289:
285:
280:
276:
275:
271:
266:
263:
262:
258:
256:
250:
247:
245:
237:
236:
235:
232:
227:
225:
220:
217:
210:
208:
205:
203:
199:
191:
189:
187:
186:Rent Act 1977
183:
179:
175:
171:
170:
159:
154:
150:
146:
140:
137:Case opinions
135:
132:
127:
123:
118:
114:
110:
106:
104:Prior actions
102:
97:
94:at bailii.org
93:
90:
86:
80:
74:
62:
56:
52:
48:
44:
40:
36:
29:
24:
19:
16:
574:
565:
492:
469:
458:
447:
438:Duke v Wynne
436:
430:
419:
408:
397:
386:
298:
291:
278:
264:
254:
243:
241:
229:
223:
221:
214:
206:
204:protection.
195:
168:
167:
166:
99:Case history
15:
148:Decision by
49:26 May 1989
593:Categories
279:Antoniades
251:Commentary
88:Transcript
83:21 HLR 513
65:(1990) 59
57:EWCA Civ 1
231:Parker LJ
224:Stribling
54:Citations
509:licenses
307:See also
281:, below.
216:Slade LJ
211:Judgment
202:Rent Act
156:Keywords
151:Slade LJ
131:Slade LJ
67:P&CR
182:licence
46:Decided
513:leases
198:London
178:leases
172:is an
61:All ER
540:Notes
351:s 116
192:Facts
161:Lease
38:Court
511:and
503:see
435:and
115:none
79:EGLR
69:218
71:40
63:618
595::
547:^
507:,
81:61
77:2
75:92
73:EG
59:3
582:.
334:e
327:t
320:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
