Knowledge (XXG)

AG Securities v Vaughan

Source 📝

134:, London, with a bedroom, kitchen and bathroom, and rented it to Mr Villiers and Miss Bridger. They moved in together and signed identical agreements on 9 February 1985. These stated that the Rent Acts did not apply and that ‘the licensor is not willing to grant... exclusive possession’ and that the use of the flat was ‘in common with the licensor and such other licensees or invitees as he may permit from time to time’. Clause 16 said that other people could use the rooms. In 1986 Mr Antoniades claimed possession. Statute would limit the power to remove them. Judge held they did have a lease. The Court of Appeal held they were licensees. 28: 119:, London: four bedrooms and communal areas (for the bedrooms' occupants). It rented (let) these to Nigel Vaughan and three others. Each moved in at different times from 1982, signing independent agreements. In May 1985 AG Securities terminated the agreements. They claimed they jointly held a tenancy (a lease) and therefore had statutory protection. The judge held there was no lease, this was a licence. The Court of Appeal held the reverse, but Sir George Waller dissented. 123: 177:
Parties to an agreement cannot contract out of the Rent Acts; if they were able to do so the Acts would be a dead letter because in a state of housing shortage a person seeking residential accommodation may agree to anything to obtain shelter... The duty of the court is to enforce the Acts and in so
149:
The House of Lords held that Mr Vaughan with his co-tenants were licensees only and not tenants, because none had exclusive possession and their rights could not be amalgamated to give a joint lease, while Mr Villiers and Ms Bridger did have exclusive possession of their room - albeit jointly - and
153:
In discussing these cases, Lord Templeman observed that tenants could be described as those people entitled to be protected with security of tenure and maximum rents since the
721: 346: 457: 99:
cases decided in the same ruling, which together clarified and confirmed as pivotal the role of exclusive possession in identifying what constitutes a
178:
doing to observe one principle which is inherent in the Acts and has been long recognised, the principle that parties cannot contract out of the Acts…
751: 419: 96: 41: 335: 208: 471: 358: 736: 447: 234: 27: 604: 150:
therefore did have a lease, despite the wording of their agreements which identified them as having only a licence (to occupy).
571: 741: 746: 527: 412: 539: 503: 161:. People could not contract out of such laws, which were intended to protect the vulnerable from harm and to prevent 550: 224: 201: 593: 274: 252: 405: 169:, nor could they be avoided by choosing words that did not match the reality. If that were possible, then 263: 194: 657: 615: 560: 243: 154: 673: 626: 285: 173:
wordings would merely become the norm, and the protective intent of the law would be unachieved:
492: 369: 638: 436: 380: 296: 104: 582: 515: 482: 307: 138: 730: 667: 662: 158: 131: 313: 116: 92: 115:
In the first case, AG Securities, an unlimited company, owned 25 Linden Mansions,
61: 122: 642: 384: 166: 162: 397: 646: 388: 186: 121: 100: 170: 401: 190: 130:
In the second case, Mr Antoniades owned 6 Whiteley Rd,
68: 57: 47: 37: 20: 52:AG Securities v Vaughan; Antoniades v Villiers 175: 413: 202: 8: 348:Bruton v London & Quadrant Housing Trust 459:Winter Garden Theatre Ltd v Millennium Ltd 420: 406: 398: 209: 195: 187: 103:(including a tenancy) for the purposes of 26: 17: 687: 111:Facts and prior Court of Appeal rulings 336:Prudential Ltd v London Residuary Body 126:6 Whiteley Road, Upper Norwood, London 165:to substandard treatment by means of 7: 472:National Provincial Bank v Ainsworth 359:European Convention on Human Rights 14: 605:Errington v Errington & Woods 448:Protection from Eviction Act 1977 235:Protection from Eviction Act 1977 137:These cases were appealed to the 540:Hounslow LBC v Twickenham GD Ltd 752:1988 in United Kingdom case law 572:Manchester Airport plc v Dutton 1: 32:Linden Mansions, Hornsey Lane 528:Hurst v Picture Theatres Ltd 504:Verrall v Great Yarmouth BC 64:, 1 AC 417, 3 All ER 1058 768: 709:Landmark Cases in Land Law 551:Land Registration Act 2002 225:Land Registration Act 2002 737:English property case law 635: 623: 612: 601: 590: 579: 568: 558: 548: 536: 524: 512: 500: 490: 479: 468: 454: 445: 433: 377: 366: 356: 343: 332: 321: 304: 293: 282: 271: 260: 250: 241: 232: 222: 73: 25: 594:Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold 275:Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold 253:Law of Property Act 1925 722:AG Securities v Vaughan 630:(1858) 4 De G&J 276 361:art 8 and Prot 1, art 1 325:AG Securities v Vaughan 82:AG Securities v Vaughan 21:AG Securities v Vaughan 180: 127: 742:English land case law 264:Errington v Errington 255:ss 1 and 205(1)(xvii) 125: 93:[1988] UKHL 8 88:Antoniades v Villiers 747:House of Lords cases 658:English property law 561:Family Law Act 1996 428:Sources on licences 244:Family Law Act 1996 674:Street v Mountford 627:De Mattos v Gibson 286:Street v Mountford 128: 707:N Gravells (ed), 653: 652: 493:Children Act 1989 395: 394: 370:Kay v Lambeth LBC 217:Sources on leases 78: 77: 759: 695: 694:1 AC 417, 458-65 692: 639:English land law 460: 437:Thomas v Sorrell 422: 415: 408: 399: 381:English land law 349: 297:Mikeover v Brady 211: 204: 197: 188: 105:English land law 30: 18: 767: 766: 762: 761: 760: 758: 757: 756: 727: 726: 718: 704: 699: 698: 693: 689: 684: 654: 649: 631: 619: 616:Inwards v Baker 608: 597: 586: 583:Binions v Evans 575: 564: 554: 544: 532: 520: 516:Thompson v Park 508: 496: 486: 483:Tanner v Tanner 475: 464: 458: 450: 441: 429: 426: 396: 391: 373: 362: 352: 347: 339: 328: 317: 300: 289: 278: 267: 256: 246: 237: 228: 218: 215: 185: 147: 113: 74:Lease, licences 33: 12: 11: 5: 765: 763: 755: 754: 749: 744: 739: 729: 728: 725: 724: 717: 716:External links 714: 713: 712: 703: 700: 697: 696: 686: 685: 683: 680: 679: 678: 670: 665: 660: 651: 650: 636: 633: 632: 624: 621: 620: 613: 610: 609: 602: 599: 598: 591: 588: 587: 580: 577: 576: 569: 566: 565: 559: 556: 555: 549: 546: 545: 537: 534: 533: 525: 522: 521: 513: 510: 509: 501: 498: 497: 495:s 15 and Sch 1 491: 488: 487: 480: 477: 476: 469: 466: 465: 455: 452: 451: 446: 443: 442: 434: 431: 430: 427: 425: 424: 417: 410: 402: 393: 392: 378: 375: 374: 367: 364: 363: 357: 354: 353: 344: 341: 340: 333: 330: 329: 322: 319: 318: 308:Aslan v Murphy 305: 302: 301: 294: 291: 290: 283: 280: 279: 272: 269: 268: 261: 258: 257: 251: 248: 247: 242: 239: 238: 233: 230: 229: 223: 220: 219: 216: 214: 213: 206: 199: 191: 184: 181: 146: 145:House of Lords 143: 139:House of Lords 112: 109: 97:House of Lords 76: 75: 71: 70: 66: 65: 59: 55: 54: 49: 48:Full case name 45: 44: 42:House of Lords 39: 35: 34: 31: 23: 22: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 764: 753: 750: 748: 745: 743: 740: 738: 735: 734: 732: 723: 720: 719: 715: 710: 706: 705: 701: 691: 688: 681: 676: 675: 671: 669: 668:Joint tenancy 666: 664: 663:Rent Act 1977 661: 659: 656: 655: 648: 644: 640: 634: 629: 628: 622: 618: 617: 611: 607: 606: 600: 596: 595: 589: 585: 584: 578: 574: 573: 567: 562: 557: 552: 547: 542: 541: 535: 530: 529: 523: 518: 517: 511: 506: 505: 499: 494: 489: 485: 484: 478: 474: 473: 467: 462: 461: 453: 449: 444: 439: 438: 432: 423: 418: 416: 411: 409: 404: 403: 400: 390: 386: 382: 376: 372: 371: 365: 360: 355: 351: 350: 342: 338: 337: 331: 327: 326: 320: 316: 315: 310: 309: 303: 299: 298: 292: 288: 287: 281: 277: 276: 270: 266: 265: 259: 254: 249: 245: 240: 236: 231: 226: 221: 212: 207: 205: 200: 198: 193: 192: 189: 182: 179: 174: 172: 168: 164: 160: 159:Rent Act 1977 156: 155:Rent Act 1915 151: 144: 142: 140: 135: 133: 132:Upper Norwood 124: 120: 118: 110: 108: 106: 102: 98: 94: 90: 89: 84: 83: 72: 67: 63: 60: 56: 53: 50: 46: 43: 40: 36: 29: 24: 19: 16: 708: 690: 672: 625: 614: 603: 592: 581: 570: 538: 526: 514: 502: 481: 470: 456: 435: 368: 345: 334: 324: 323: 314:Duke v Wynne 312: 306: 295: 284: 273: 262: 176: 157:, up to the 152: 148: 136: 129: 117:Hornsey Lane 114: 87: 86: 81: 80: 79: 51: 15: 731:Categories 702:References 95:were two 58:Citations 643:licences 563:ss 30-31 543:1 Ch 233 385:licenses 183:See also 167:coercion 69:Keywords 163:consent 711:(2013) 677:AC 809 647:leases 531:1 KB 1 519:KB 408 507:QB 202 463:AC 173 440:(1673) 389:leases 62:UKHL 8 682:Notes 553:s 116 227:s 116 101:lease 91: 38:Court 645:and 637:see 387:and 379:see 311:and 171:sham 85:and 733:: 641:, 383:, 141:. 107:. 421:e 414:t 407:v 210:e 203:t 196:v

Index


House of Lords
UKHL 8
[1988] UKHL 8
House of Lords
lease
English land law
Hornsey Lane

Upper Norwood
House of Lords
Rent Act 1915
Rent Act 1977
consent
coercion
sham
v
t
e
Land Registration Act 2002
Protection from Eviction Act 1977
Family Law Act 1996
Law of Property Act 1925
Errington v Errington
Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold
Street v Mountford
Mikeover v Brady
Aslan v Murphy
Duke v Wynne
AG Securities v Vaughan

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.