211:, 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
39:
249:"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."
230:
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'.
229:
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
153:
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
154:
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
195:. 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
266:
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.
619:
253:
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
481:
614:
470:
343:
493:
369:
609:
89:
359:
336:
409:
387:
459:
71:
398:
329:
303:
544:
241:
378:
539:
420:
310:
504:
226:
141:
534:
515:
431:
184:
38:
83:
442:
569:
102:
603:
196:
580:*Sparkes, ‘Co-Tenants, Joint Tenants and Tenants in Common’ (1989) 18 AALR 151, 155:
448:
17:
257:, part of the essential reasoning which led this court to its final decision.
43:
An eviction notice (which will have been posted or process-served per rules)
519:
212:
590:
192:
523:
288:
Obiter dictum of Lord
Templeman and Obiter dictum of Lord Jauncey in
208:
188:
321:
77:
325:
244:
with whose judgment Fox LJ and Sir Denys
Buckley agreed, said:
118:
Appellant also lost in the court below, first instance
166:
158:
147:
135:
130:
122:
114:
109:
98:
64:
56:
48:
31:
191:, specifically a standard tenancy as opposed to a
199:type tenancies which he hoped to benefit from.
337:
233:Following devoutly the likewise 1989 case of
8:
483:Bruton v London & Quadrant Housing Trust
344:
330:
322:
218:County Court held they had only licences.
207:Mikeover Ltd had leased 179 Southgate Rd,
37:
28:
620:Court of Appeal (England and Wales) cases
591:"Index card Mikeover Ltd v Brady - ICLR"
565:
563:
561:
559:
555:
471:Prudential Ltd v London Residuary Body
7:
494:European Convention on Human Rights
187:case, concerning the definition of
278:(EWCA, March 15, 1989, unreported)
25:
370:Protection from Eviction Act 1977
615:1989 in United Kingdom case law
1:
270:Cases approved and followed
636:
360:Land Registration Act 2002
512:
501:
491:
478:
467:
456:
439:
428:
417:
406:
395:
385:
376:
367:
357:
171:
152:
36:
570:HTML Version of Judgment
410:Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold
388:Law of Property Act 1925
103:HTML Version of Judgment
496:art 8 and Prot 1, art 1
460:AG Securities v Vaughan
259:
610:English land case law
399:Errington v Errington
390:ss 1 and 205(1)(xvii)
304:Antoniades v Villiers
239:
545:English property law
180:Mikeover Ltd v Brady
32:Mikeover Ltd v Brady
379:Family Law Act 1996
297:Cases distinguished
276:Stribling v Wickham
255:Stribling v Wickham
540:English trusts law
421:Street v Mountford
311:Street v Mountford
237:, Slade LJ added:
530:
529:
505:Kay v Lambeth LBC
352:Sources on leases
283:Precedent applied
176:
175:
139:Anthony Lincoln J
123:Subsequent action
16:(Redirected from
627:
595:
594:
587:
581:
578:
572:
567:
535:English land law
516:English land law
484:
432:Mikeover v Brady
346:
339:
332:
323:
185:English land law
131:Court membership
79:
41:
29:
21:
18:Mikeover v Brady
635:
634:
630:
629:
628:
626:
625:
624:
600:
599:
598:
589:
588:
584:
579:
575:
568:
557:
553:
531:
526:
508:
497:
487:
482:
474:
463:
452:
435:
424:
413:
402:
391:
381:
372:
363:
353:
350:
320:
299:
285:
272:
264:
245:
224:
205:
140:
93:
87:
81:
75:
69:
52:Court of Appeal
44:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
633:
631:
623:
622:
617:
612:
602:
601:
597:
596:
582:
573:
554:
552:
549:
548:
547:
542:
537:
528:
527:
513:
510:
509:
502:
499:
498:
492:
489:
488:
479:
476:
475:
468:
465:
464:
457:
454:
453:
443:Aslan v Murphy
440:
437:
436:
429:
426:
425:
418:
415:
414:
407:
404:
403:
396:
393:
392:
386:
383:
382:
377:
374:
373:
368:
365:
364:
358:
355:
354:
351:
349:
348:
341:
334:
326:
319:
316:
315:
314:
307:
298:
295:
294:
293:
284:
281:
280:
279:
271:
268:
263:
260:
251:
250:
223:
220:
204:
201:
174:
173:
169:
168:
164:
163:
160:
156:
155:
150:
149:
145:
144:
137:
136:Judges sitting
133:
132:
128:
127:
124:
120:
119:
116:
112:
111:
107:
106:
100:
96:
95:
66:
62:
61:
58:
54:
53:
50:
46:
45:
42:
34:
33:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
632:
621:
618:
616:
613:
611:
608:
607:
605:
592:
586:
583:
577:
574:
571:
566:
564:
562:
560:
556:
550:
546:
543:
541:
538:
536:
533:
532:
525:
521:
517:
511:
507:
506:
500:
495:
490:
486:
485:
477:
473:
472:
466:
462:
461:
455:
451:
450:
445:
444:
438:
434:
433:
427:
423:
422:
416:
412:
411:
405:
401:
400:
394:
389:
384:
380:
375:
371:
366:
361:
356:
347:
342:
340:
335:
333:
328:
327:
324:
317:
313:
312:
308:
306:
305:
301:
300:
296:
291:
287:
286:
282:
277:
274:
273:
269:
267:
261:
258:
256:
248:
247:
246:
243:
238:
236:
231:
228:
221:
219:
216:
214:
210:
202:
200:
198:
197:Rent Act 1977
194:
190:
186:
182:
181:
170:
165:
161:
157:
151:
148:Case opinions
146:
143:
138:
134:
129:
125:
121:
117:
115:Prior actions
113:
108:
105:at bailii.org
104:
101:
97:
91:
85:
73:
67:
63:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
35:
30:
27:
19:
585:
576:
503:
480:
469:
458:
449:Duke v Wynne
447:
441:
430:
419:
408:
397:
309:
302:
289:
275:
265:
254:
252:
240:
234:
232:
225:
217:
215:protection.
206:
179:
178:
177:
110:Case history
26:
159:Decision by
60:26 May 1989
604:Categories
290:Antoniades
262:Commentary
99:Transcript
94:21 HLR 513
76:(1990) 59
68:EWCA Civ 1
242:Parker LJ
235:Stribling
65:Citations
520:licenses
318:See also
292:, below.
227:Slade LJ
222:Judgment
213:Rent Act
167:Keywords
162:Slade LJ
142:Slade LJ
78:P&CR
193:licence
57:Decided
524:leases
209:London
189:leases
183:is an
72:All ER
551:Notes
362:s 116
203:Facts
172:Lease
49:Court
522:and
514:see
446:and
126:none
90:EGLR
80:218
82:40
74:618
606::
558:^
518:,
92:61
88:2
86:92
84:EG
70:3
593:.
345:e
338:t
331:v
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
