LAWS3160 INTRODUCTION TO
PROPERTY LAW SPRING TERM
2025/2026 EXAM QUESTIONS WITH
COMPLETE ANSWERS
What was the circumstances in 1983 surrounding tenancies - Answer-· The Rent Act
1977 provided tenants with:
o Rent regulation
o Security of tenure
o Strong succession rights
· Licensees excluded from protections
· Council housing:
o The Right to Buy Housing Act 1980
o The Secure Tenancies
o Limited building
o Beginning to decline but still a dominated form of tenure
· Distinction between the lease and the license was the legal threshold for rights for
occupiers
· Courts in effect policing the grant of rights to occupiers
· Lower courts resistance to the grant of rights to occupiers:
o Aldrington Garages Ltd v Fielder 1978 7 WLUK
What did Aldrington Garages Ltd v Fielder 1978 7 WLUK decide? - Answer-§ Where
the parties succeed in producing an agreement which is in fact a license and not a
tenancy they should not be prevented from that course by the courts
What did Street v Mountford say a tenancy was - Answer-An agreement granting
exclusive occupation of residential accommodation for a term at a rent (where no
services are provided) creates a tenancy, notwithstanding the use of the word
'license'
why was Street v Mountford 1985 House of Lords a radical decision? - Answer-·
Overrules contractual autonomy
· Lowers the threshold for statutory protections
The Facts of Street v Mountford - Answer-· Mrs Mountford and her husband lived in
a top floor of a house divided into 'flatlets', owned by Mr Street- a solicitor
· An agreement was signed in 1983,
o Payment of £37 per week Mrs Mountford;
o A ban on anyone other than Mrs Mountford occupying the rooms without prior
permission;
o A right on the owner's part to enter the rooms to inspect them, read meters, carry
out maintenance, etc;
o A requirement to keep rooms clean and tidy
o Agreement terminable on 14 days notice
,· The agreement stated, 'I understand and accept that a licence in the above form
does not and is not intended to give me a tenancy protected under the Rent Act'.
Street v Mountford
What is a lease- The House of Lords - Answer-Lord Templeman (at 816) defined a
lease as
· A grant of land
· For a term
· At a rent- although this may no longer be required
· With exclusive possession of the land
So what did Lord Templeman say was the primary difference between the definition
of a lease and the definition of a license? - Answer-is that a licence does not confer
exclusive possession of the land
Or put another way
Where there is exclusive possession then the agreement is a lease unless it falls
within an exception
Key quotes from Street v Mountford 1998 Tenancies are estates in land - Answer-
Lord Templeman (at 816)
· A tenancy [is] an estate in land. The tenant possessing exclusive possession is
able to exercise the rights of an owner of land, which is in the real sense his land
albeit temporarily and subject to certain restrictions. A tenant armed with exclusive
possession can keep out strangers and keep out the landlord unless the landlord is
exercising limited rights reserved by the tenancy agreement to enter and view and
repair
· A licensee lacking exclusive possession can in no sense call the land his own and
cannot be said to own any estate in the land. The licence does not create an estate
in the land to which it relates but only makes an act lawful which would otherwise be
unlawful
What is the famous legal aphorism Lord Templeman said in Street v Mountford -
Answer-· '... the consequences in law of the agreement, once concluded, can only be
determined by consideration of the effect of the agreement. If the agreement
satisfied all the requirements of a tenancy, then the agreement produced a tenancy
and the parties cannot alter the effect of the agreement by insisting that they only
created a licence.
· The manufacture of a five-pronged implement for manual digging results in a fork
even if the manufacturer, unfamiliar with the English language, insists that he
intended to make and has made a spade'
Why is Street v Mountford a landmark case? - Answer-· The context of the Rent Act
is very important.
· Guaranteed rights for tenants.
· What Street v Mountford decides is that a tenancy involves exclusive possession,
for a term, at a rent.
Antoniades v Villiers [1990] - Answer-Co-habiting couple took a 1 bedroom flat.
Held - right reserved to landowner to allow others to share the flat was deemed a
pretence.
,Finally and significantly, Mr. Antoniades never made any attempt to obtain increased
income from the flat by exercising the powers which [the clause] purported to reserve
to him. [It] was only designed to disguise the grant of a tenancy and to contract out of
the Rent Acts.'
Lord Templeman (at 462)
This was a lease
How to treat the agreement between Antoniades v Villiers - Answer-In considering
one or more documents for the purpose of deciding whether a tenancy has been
created, the court must consider the surrounding circumstances including any
relationship between the prospective occupiers, the course of negotiations and the
nature and extent of the accommodation and the intended and actual mode of
occupation of the accommodation.'
The Surrounding Circumstances of Antoniades v Villiers - Answer-It was clear from
the course of negotiations and from what actually happened in practice that Mr
Antoniades did not intend to share accommodation with Mr Villiers and Miss Bridger,
nor to allow others to do so:
1. The right to do so, apparently reserved under the agreement, had never been
exercised.
2. It was clear that neither of the defendants knew what 'exclusive possession'
referred to; had Mr Antoniades intended to share, this would have emerged during
negotiations.
- The facilities in the flat were not suitable for sharing between strangers.
How can you tell if there is exclusive possession? - Answer-· Separate agreements
can be interdependent (in particular where they contain identical terms);
o examine the surrounding circumstances (e.g. did the occupants apply for the
accommodation jointly, and did they seek joint and exclusive possession of the
premises?).
· Specific terms in an accommodation agreement can be a pretence (or sham) and
therefore take no effect.
o To establish whether the terms are a pretense, one must examine the surrounding
circumstances (e.g. the course of negotiations, the intended and actual use of the
premises, etc.).
AG Securities v Vaughan [1990] - Answer-There is no unity of title where the
different persons are unknown to one another, move in at different times, under
different agreements as and when a room becomes vacant.
What did Lord Templeman argued in AG Securities - Answer-- The four residents
could therefore not be tenants; they had to be licensees.·
- They had a license as they did not have an assigned room
· AGS were under no compulsion to give each occupant an agreement containing
the same terms or to require any payment;
· the agreements signed did not compel any occupant to become a joint tenant of the
whole flat with someone who moved into the flat later on;
· no one had agreed to become a joint tenant;
· the company had the right under the agreement to move a new occupant into the
flat when a room became available.
, What are the 4 unity requirements for joint tenancy - Answer-1. Unity of possession:
each joint tenant must be entitled to possession of every part of the co-owned land.
2. Unity of interest: each joint tenant's interest in the estate must be the same in
extent, nature, and duration.
3. Unity of title: each joint tenant must derive their title to the estate from the same
act (e.g. adverse possession) or the same document.
4. Unity of time: the interest of each joint tenant must normally vest at the same time.
Antoniades v Villers
The four unities - Answer-1- possession:
Yes- both entitled to possess 100% of the flat
2- interest:
yes- mostly identical agreements (same rent etc.)
3- title:
Yes- court determined agreements could be read together
4- time:
Yes- agreements signed at the same time
AG Securities v Vaughan
The four unities - Answer-1- possession:
Arguably yes- all were entitled to possess 100% of the flat
2- No- whilst agreements were for the same amount of time, they started at different
times, so at any given time their interests were different
3- title:
no- separate agreements that could not be read together
4- time:
No- different agreements signed at different times, so right to occupy also started at
different times
How do we determine if separate accommodation agreement have joint tenancy? -
Answer-1. Do the agreements require the signatories to become joint tenants with
others?
2. What would happen if one of the tenants died? If the answer is that the landlord
would move someone else in, and the other tenants would have no power to prevent
this, then they cannot have a joint tenancy (because joint tenants enjoy exclusive
possession).
3. Are the four unities present?
Why is Westminster City Council v Clarke [1992] important - Answer-The purpose of
the accommodation is relevant even when there is exclusive possession
Westminster CC v Clarke [1992] - Answer--Landowner can enter at any time to
ensure compliance with occupancy terms.
- Lord Templeman reasoned that the Council's purpose in specifying the terms of the
agreement had to be taken into account in determining whether it conferred a lease
or a licence.
- He concluded that the agreement was a license
PROPERTY LAW SPRING TERM
2025/2026 EXAM QUESTIONS WITH
COMPLETE ANSWERS
What was the circumstances in 1983 surrounding tenancies - Answer-· The Rent Act
1977 provided tenants with:
o Rent regulation
o Security of tenure
o Strong succession rights
· Licensees excluded from protections
· Council housing:
o The Right to Buy Housing Act 1980
o The Secure Tenancies
o Limited building
o Beginning to decline but still a dominated form of tenure
· Distinction between the lease and the license was the legal threshold for rights for
occupiers
· Courts in effect policing the grant of rights to occupiers
· Lower courts resistance to the grant of rights to occupiers:
o Aldrington Garages Ltd v Fielder 1978 7 WLUK
What did Aldrington Garages Ltd v Fielder 1978 7 WLUK decide? - Answer-§ Where
the parties succeed in producing an agreement which is in fact a license and not a
tenancy they should not be prevented from that course by the courts
What did Street v Mountford say a tenancy was - Answer-An agreement granting
exclusive occupation of residential accommodation for a term at a rent (where no
services are provided) creates a tenancy, notwithstanding the use of the word
'license'
why was Street v Mountford 1985 House of Lords a radical decision? - Answer-·
Overrules contractual autonomy
· Lowers the threshold for statutory protections
The Facts of Street v Mountford - Answer-· Mrs Mountford and her husband lived in
a top floor of a house divided into 'flatlets', owned by Mr Street- a solicitor
· An agreement was signed in 1983,
o Payment of £37 per week Mrs Mountford;
o A ban on anyone other than Mrs Mountford occupying the rooms without prior
permission;
o A right on the owner's part to enter the rooms to inspect them, read meters, carry
out maintenance, etc;
o A requirement to keep rooms clean and tidy
o Agreement terminable on 14 days notice
,· The agreement stated, 'I understand and accept that a licence in the above form
does not and is not intended to give me a tenancy protected under the Rent Act'.
Street v Mountford
What is a lease- The House of Lords - Answer-Lord Templeman (at 816) defined a
lease as
· A grant of land
· For a term
· At a rent- although this may no longer be required
· With exclusive possession of the land
So what did Lord Templeman say was the primary difference between the definition
of a lease and the definition of a license? - Answer-is that a licence does not confer
exclusive possession of the land
Or put another way
Where there is exclusive possession then the agreement is a lease unless it falls
within an exception
Key quotes from Street v Mountford 1998 Tenancies are estates in land - Answer-
Lord Templeman (at 816)
· A tenancy [is] an estate in land. The tenant possessing exclusive possession is
able to exercise the rights of an owner of land, which is in the real sense his land
albeit temporarily and subject to certain restrictions. A tenant armed with exclusive
possession can keep out strangers and keep out the landlord unless the landlord is
exercising limited rights reserved by the tenancy agreement to enter and view and
repair
· A licensee lacking exclusive possession can in no sense call the land his own and
cannot be said to own any estate in the land. The licence does not create an estate
in the land to which it relates but only makes an act lawful which would otherwise be
unlawful
What is the famous legal aphorism Lord Templeman said in Street v Mountford -
Answer-· '... the consequences in law of the agreement, once concluded, can only be
determined by consideration of the effect of the agreement. If the agreement
satisfied all the requirements of a tenancy, then the agreement produced a tenancy
and the parties cannot alter the effect of the agreement by insisting that they only
created a licence.
· The manufacture of a five-pronged implement for manual digging results in a fork
even if the manufacturer, unfamiliar with the English language, insists that he
intended to make and has made a spade'
Why is Street v Mountford a landmark case? - Answer-· The context of the Rent Act
is very important.
· Guaranteed rights for tenants.
· What Street v Mountford decides is that a tenancy involves exclusive possession,
for a term, at a rent.
Antoniades v Villiers [1990] - Answer-Co-habiting couple took a 1 bedroom flat.
Held - right reserved to landowner to allow others to share the flat was deemed a
pretence.
,Finally and significantly, Mr. Antoniades never made any attempt to obtain increased
income from the flat by exercising the powers which [the clause] purported to reserve
to him. [It] was only designed to disguise the grant of a tenancy and to contract out of
the Rent Acts.'
Lord Templeman (at 462)
This was a lease
How to treat the agreement between Antoniades v Villiers - Answer-In considering
one or more documents for the purpose of deciding whether a tenancy has been
created, the court must consider the surrounding circumstances including any
relationship between the prospective occupiers, the course of negotiations and the
nature and extent of the accommodation and the intended and actual mode of
occupation of the accommodation.'
The Surrounding Circumstances of Antoniades v Villiers - Answer-It was clear from
the course of negotiations and from what actually happened in practice that Mr
Antoniades did not intend to share accommodation with Mr Villiers and Miss Bridger,
nor to allow others to do so:
1. The right to do so, apparently reserved under the agreement, had never been
exercised.
2. It was clear that neither of the defendants knew what 'exclusive possession'
referred to; had Mr Antoniades intended to share, this would have emerged during
negotiations.
- The facilities in the flat were not suitable for sharing between strangers.
How can you tell if there is exclusive possession? - Answer-· Separate agreements
can be interdependent (in particular where they contain identical terms);
o examine the surrounding circumstances (e.g. did the occupants apply for the
accommodation jointly, and did they seek joint and exclusive possession of the
premises?).
· Specific terms in an accommodation agreement can be a pretence (or sham) and
therefore take no effect.
o To establish whether the terms are a pretense, one must examine the surrounding
circumstances (e.g. the course of negotiations, the intended and actual use of the
premises, etc.).
AG Securities v Vaughan [1990] - Answer-There is no unity of title where the
different persons are unknown to one another, move in at different times, under
different agreements as and when a room becomes vacant.
What did Lord Templeman argued in AG Securities - Answer-- The four residents
could therefore not be tenants; they had to be licensees.·
- They had a license as they did not have an assigned room
· AGS were under no compulsion to give each occupant an agreement containing
the same terms or to require any payment;
· the agreements signed did not compel any occupant to become a joint tenant of the
whole flat with someone who moved into the flat later on;
· no one had agreed to become a joint tenant;
· the company had the right under the agreement to move a new occupant into the
flat when a room became available.
, What are the 4 unity requirements for joint tenancy - Answer-1. Unity of possession:
each joint tenant must be entitled to possession of every part of the co-owned land.
2. Unity of interest: each joint tenant's interest in the estate must be the same in
extent, nature, and duration.
3. Unity of title: each joint tenant must derive their title to the estate from the same
act (e.g. adverse possession) or the same document.
4. Unity of time: the interest of each joint tenant must normally vest at the same time.
Antoniades v Villers
The four unities - Answer-1- possession:
Yes- both entitled to possess 100% of the flat
2- interest:
yes- mostly identical agreements (same rent etc.)
3- title:
Yes- court determined agreements could be read together
4- time:
Yes- agreements signed at the same time
AG Securities v Vaughan
The four unities - Answer-1- possession:
Arguably yes- all were entitled to possess 100% of the flat
2- No- whilst agreements were for the same amount of time, they started at different
times, so at any given time their interests were different
3- title:
no- separate agreements that could not be read together
4- time:
No- different agreements signed at different times, so right to occupy also started at
different times
How do we determine if separate accommodation agreement have joint tenancy? -
Answer-1. Do the agreements require the signatories to become joint tenants with
others?
2. What would happen if one of the tenants died? If the answer is that the landlord
would move someone else in, and the other tenants would have no power to prevent
this, then they cannot have a joint tenancy (because joint tenants enjoy exclusive
possession).
3. Are the four unities present?
Why is Westminster City Council v Clarke [1992] important - Answer-The purpose of
the accommodation is relevant even when there is exclusive possession
Westminster CC v Clarke [1992] - Answer--Landowner can enter at any time to
ensure compliance with occupancy terms.
- Lord Templeman reasoned that the Council's purpose in specifying the terms of the
agreement had to be taken into account in determining whether it conferred a lease
or a licence.
- He concluded that the agreement was a license
