Last edited by Akikazahn
Wednesday, August 5, 2020 | History

2 edition of Street v Mountford found in the catalog.

Street v Mountford

D. N. Clarke

Street v Mountford

the question of intent : a view from down under.

by D. N. Clarke

  • 4 Want to read
  • 2 Currently reading

Published by Sweet & Maxwell in London .
Written in English


Edition Notes

Photocopy of: The Conveyancer and Property Lawyer, Jan/Feb, (1986), pp. 39-43.

Other titlesThe Conveyancer and Property Lawyer.
ID Numbers
Open LibraryOL14800324M

  If you need immediate assistance, call SSRNHelp ( ) in the United States, or +1 outside of the United States, AM to PM U.S. Eastern, Monday - Author: Susan Bright. case analysis of street mountford read street mountford () ac (lord judgement) and answer the following questions: mrs. manford occupying part of house.

  Why are the secrets of the Pitjantjara people for sale in Adelaide? Foster and Others v Mountford and Rigby Ltd 14 ALR 71 () was an unusual case in a number of respects.   Law prior to Street v Mountford In the case of Lynes v Snaith [] 1 QB that courts decided that the fact that the defendant had exclusive possession of the property concerned, was indicative of the presence of a lease and not merely a licence. The case of Facchini a Bryson [] 1 T.L.R. restated this position and held that /5(30).

THE NATURE OF A LEASE Bruton v London & Quadrant Housing Trust () A lease can exist in law even where the landlord has no legal title to the land Street v. “The decision of the House of Lords in Street v Mountford in represented a sea-change in the approach of the courts” (Smith R, Property Law 6th edition () p. , Longman Press).Discuss in the context of the court’s approach to the distinction between leases and licences. Introduction.


Share this book
You might also like
Mathematics education research

Mathematics education research

Convicted out of her own mouth

Convicted out of her own mouth

superpowers and arms control

superpowers and arms control

Introduction to digital computing

Introduction to digital computing

Lifpac Gold Mathmatics Grade 1 Boxed Set

Lifpac Gold Mathmatics Grade 1 Boxed Set

Explosion and combustion processes in gases.

Explosion and combustion processes in gases.

Key to Al Imran

Key to Al Imran

In search of a national identity

In search of a national identity

treatise on the law of partnership.

treatise on the law of partnership.

Direct-mail advertising and selling

Direct-mail advertising and selling

Workshop report on Decentralized Build Together Programme

Workshop report on Decentralized Build Together Programme

Street v Mountford by D. N. Clarke Download PDF EPUB FB2

The respondent, Street, granted a licence to the appellant, Mountford, to occupy two rooms at a weekly rent subject to 14 days’ notice of termination. The written agreement was titled a ‘licence agreement’ and contained a declaration that it did not create a tenancy. The respondent sought a court declaration that Mountford only had a licence.

Two chapters are devoted to the seminal case of Street v Mountford and its contemporary significance. A comparison is also made with the position in Australia and the United States. The book provides a scholarly reflection on the principles of leasehold law that will be of interest to practitioners, academics, and students of landlord and.

Street gave 14 days' notice to determine the agreementand sued Mrs. Mountford for possession. The Recorder in thecounty court held that Mrs. Mountford was a tenant entitled tothe protection of the Rent Acts and dismissed the action.

43 Street v Mountford was not mentioned by the House of Lords in Burrows v Brent LBC [1 ] 1 WLR (HL).

44 Lambeth LBC v O'Kane, Helena Housing Ltd v Pind er [] EWCA Civ Author: Susan Bright. Street v Mountford [] Facts. Street granted Mountford the right to occupy two rooms in his house, with exclusive possession, for a weekly rent and determinable on 14 days’ notice.

Street had Mountford sign a declaration that the right to occupy constituted a licence and not a lease. Critically analyse the impact of the decision of the House of Lords in Street -v- Mountford [] AC This assignment will consider the case of Street v Mountford and consider the decision and speech of Lord Templeman and analyse whether or not the correct conclusions were reached.

The assignment will then go on to consider the implications of the case and its subsequent application, concluding that. Street v Mountford. Street v Mountford [] 2 WLR House of Lords. Mr Street, by an agreement which stated that it was a licence, granted Mrs Mountford the right to occupy rooms 5 & 6 of the property 5 St Clements Gardens in Boscombe for a rent of per week.

Introduction Lord Templeman’s judgment in Street v Mountford ([] A.C. ) was an authoritative restatement of the defining characteristics of a lease. It provided clarity as to the factors that distinguish the lease from the contractual licence.

Essential Cases: Land Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Street v Mountford [] ACHouse of Lords.

The document also includes supporting commentary from author Aruna : Aruna Nair. Street v Mountford [] AC gives a good exposition of the law in this area.

Other arrangements that may be encountered which are not grazing licences include Profits a prendre. Street v Mountford [] AC Facts: Mr Street, by an agreement which stated that it was a licence, granted Mrs Mountford the right to occupy rooms in a property. The question for the court was whether the agreement wasn, as expressed in the agreement, a licence, or whether it was in fact a lease.

The court reiterated the principles set out in Street v Mountford and other cases that the essential requirement for a lease is that the occupier is granted exclusive possession of the property.

It is important to look at the agreement as a whole, and the absence both of a right for the landowner to enter the property and of a covenant for quiet enjoyment of the property are important factors. If the latter, it is arguable that Part I of the Housing Act is a direct consequence of Street v Mountford though personally I would disagree.

I would say that the provisions of that Part were simply a natural consequences of the developments set out sections of the Housing Act 18 Street v Mountford [] ACper Lord Templeman at B. 19 This feature of the common law tradition is just as evident outside the English jurisdiction.

Decision of the House of Lords in Street V Mountford “The decision of the House of Lords in Street v Mountford in represented a sea-change in the approach of the courts” (Smith R, Property Law 6th edition () p.Longman Press).

Discuss in the context of the court’s approach to the distinction between leases and licences. Five Equity, Trust and Land Law Cases You Should Know. Updated Tuesday, 7th August Street v Mountford. OpenLearn works with other organisations by providing free courses and resources that support our mission of opening up educational opportunities to more people in more places.

Two chapters are devoted to the seminal case of Street v Mountford and its contemporary significance. A comparison is also made with the position in Australia and the United States. The book provides a scholarly reflection on the principles of leasehold law that will be of interest to practitioners, academics, and students of landlord and 5/5(1).

COVID Resources. Reliable information about the coronavirus (COVID) is available from the World Health Organization (current situation, international travel).Numerous and frequently-updated resource results are available from this ’s WebJunction has pulled together information and resources to assist library staff as they consider how to handle coronavirus.

Street v Mountford [] UKHL 4 is an English land law case from the House of Lords. It set out principles to determine whether someone who occupied a property had a tenancy (i.e.

a lease), or only a licence. This mattered for the purpose of statutory tenant rights to a reasonable rent, and had a w. The seminal case on the distinction between leases and licences is the case of Street v Mountford which identified the three distinguishing features of a lease as: exclusive possession for fixed or periodic term certain in consideration of a lump sum or periodical payments.

Landmark Cases in Land Law is the sixth volume in the Landmark Cases series of collected essays on leading cases (previous volumes in the series having covered Maintaining the Integrity of Registration Systems Mark P Thompson 8 Street v Mountford (); AG Securities v Vaughan; Book .Cited – Street v Mountford HL ([] 1 EGLR[] 2 All ER[] 2 WLR[] AC[] UKHL 4, Bailii) The document signed by the occupier stated that she understood that she had been given a licence, and that she understood that she had not been granted a .Cases - Street v Mountford Record details Name Street v Mountford Date [] Citation AC Keywords Tenancy - exclusive possession - Rent Acts Summary.

A person who has exclusive possession is a tenant, not a licensee. Resources. Resources. Document templates; RICS .