Leases Law A2/University
Under S. 205 LPA 1925, a leasehold estate has no time limits, as long as the period of time is
defined.
Lord Hoffman said in Bruton v London & Quadrant Housing Trust ‘A lease will usually generate a
proprietary interest’
Martin Dixon’s comment on the above ‘a modern heresy’
The 3 main components of a lease are Exclusive possession, for a fixed period, with consideration.
In Aslan v Murphy it was held that an extensive right of access or supervisory control over a
leasehold estate creates a contractual licence rather than a lease.
In the case of Atoniades v Villiers the phrase ‘a cat does not become a dog because the parties
have agreed to call it a dog’.
In AG Securities v Vaughn it was held that the proprietary rights of those in a flat share will most
likely rank as a contractual licensees.
According to Hallen v Spaeth, if a sub-lease is created for a longer period of time than the head
lease, what will the transaction take effect as an assignment.
the sections of LRA 2002 govern the kind of lease that need to be registered are SS4, 27
A leasehold estate will be valid whether or not the estate out of which it is carved is registered
S6(3) LRA 2002.
A specifically enforceable contract to transfer is the type of disposition a dealing with a registered
leasehold estate be in order to qualify to be registered.
S6 of the LRA 2002 deals with the registration of leases which at the date of dealing in certain
transactions still has more than 7 years left to run.
The leasehold estate out of which it is carved must be registered as stated in (Wheeler v Mercer) -
this is not required for the creation of a periodic tenancy at law.
The case of Kay v Lambeth LBC states that an estoppel will be ‘fed’, if the landlord acquired land
he was not entitled to but granted a lease out of.
Where a contract is specifically enforceable so equity can not intervene, the protection offered to a
tenant is the creation of an implied periodic tenancy as stated in the case of Martin and Smith so
limited protection as an overriding interest.
There are no implied easements available under S62 LPA 1925 for a legal lead and this is why it
can be argued that it is better to have a legal ease than an equitable lease.
Case Name Facts Held/Established
Page 1 of 42
,Leases Law A2/University
Case Name Facts Held/Established
1 Street v Mountford In March 1983, Mr Streer granted to Mrs The House of Lords cons
[1985] A.C. 809 Mountford the right to occupy rooms at St in which case the fair
Clements Gardens, Boscombe, for £37 per whether` the arrangement
week. The parties entered into a written by the Rent Acts.
agreement in which the arrangement was
described throughout as a „licence‟; the Mr Street conceded tha
payment was called a „licence fee‟ and Mr possession of the rooms, b
Street reserved the right to enter the rooms the document that both
at any time for any reasonable purpose. A licence, not a lease.
declaration in the agreement signed by Mrs
Mountford stated: „I understand and accept Lord Templeman stated th
that a licence in the above form does not and the agreement which dete
is not intended to give me a tenancy words used simply indic
protected under the Rent Acts‟. Mrs parties rather than the true
Mountford registered a fair rent under the
Rent Acts in respect of the premises. Lord Templeman stated c
the key characteristic of
cannot exist. However, h
possession is, of itself, no
exclusive possession may
if he has a service occu
intention to create legal re
Page 2 of 42
, Leases Law A2/University
Case Name Facts Held/Established
2 Mexfield Housing
Co-operative Ltd v
Berrisford [2011]
UKSC 52, [2012] 1
AC 955
Page 3 of 42
Under S. 205 LPA 1925, a leasehold estate has no time limits, as long as the period of time is
defined.
Lord Hoffman said in Bruton v London & Quadrant Housing Trust ‘A lease will usually generate a
proprietary interest’
Martin Dixon’s comment on the above ‘a modern heresy’
The 3 main components of a lease are Exclusive possession, for a fixed period, with consideration.
In Aslan v Murphy it was held that an extensive right of access or supervisory control over a
leasehold estate creates a contractual licence rather than a lease.
In the case of Atoniades v Villiers the phrase ‘a cat does not become a dog because the parties
have agreed to call it a dog’.
In AG Securities v Vaughn it was held that the proprietary rights of those in a flat share will most
likely rank as a contractual licensees.
According to Hallen v Spaeth, if a sub-lease is created for a longer period of time than the head
lease, what will the transaction take effect as an assignment.
the sections of LRA 2002 govern the kind of lease that need to be registered are SS4, 27
A leasehold estate will be valid whether or not the estate out of which it is carved is registered
S6(3) LRA 2002.
A specifically enforceable contract to transfer is the type of disposition a dealing with a registered
leasehold estate be in order to qualify to be registered.
S6 of the LRA 2002 deals with the registration of leases which at the date of dealing in certain
transactions still has more than 7 years left to run.
The leasehold estate out of which it is carved must be registered as stated in (Wheeler v Mercer) -
this is not required for the creation of a periodic tenancy at law.
The case of Kay v Lambeth LBC states that an estoppel will be ‘fed’, if the landlord acquired land
he was not entitled to but granted a lease out of.
Where a contract is specifically enforceable so equity can not intervene, the protection offered to a
tenant is the creation of an implied periodic tenancy as stated in the case of Martin and Smith so
limited protection as an overriding interest.
There are no implied easements available under S62 LPA 1925 for a legal lead and this is why it
can be argued that it is better to have a legal ease than an equitable lease.
Case Name Facts Held/Established
Page 1 of 42
,Leases Law A2/University
Case Name Facts Held/Established
1 Street v Mountford In March 1983, Mr Streer granted to Mrs The House of Lords cons
[1985] A.C. 809 Mountford the right to occupy rooms at St in which case the fair
Clements Gardens, Boscombe, for £37 per whether` the arrangement
week. The parties entered into a written by the Rent Acts.
agreement in which the arrangement was
described throughout as a „licence‟; the Mr Street conceded tha
payment was called a „licence fee‟ and Mr possession of the rooms, b
Street reserved the right to enter the rooms the document that both
at any time for any reasonable purpose. A licence, not a lease.
declaration in the agreement signed by Mrs
Mountford stated: „I understand and accept Lord Templeman stated th
that a licence in the above form does not and the agreement which dete
is not intended to give me a tenancy words used simply indic
protected under the Rent Acts‟. Mrs parties rather than the true
Mountford registered a fair rent under the
Rent Acts in respect of the premises. Lord Templeman stated c
the key characteristic of
cannot exist. However, h
possession is, of itself, no
exclusive possession may
if he has a service occu
intention to create legal re
Page 2 of 42
, Leases Law A2/University
Case Name Facts Held/Established
2 Mexfield Housing
Co-operative Ltd v
Berrisford [2011]
UKSC 52, [2012] 1
AC 955
Page 3 of 42
