''Mikeover Ltd v Brady''

989 Year 989 ( CMLXXXIX) was a common year starting on Tuesday (link will display the full calendar) of the Julian calendar. Events By place Byzantine Empire * Emperor Basil II uses his contingent of 6,000 Varangians to help him defeat ...

is an

English land law English land law is the law of real property in England and Wales. Because of its heavy historical and social significance, land is usually seen as the most important part of English property law. Ownership of land has its roots in the feudal ...

case, concerning the definition of

leases A lease is a contractual arrangement calling for the user (referred to as the ''lessee'') to pay the owner (referred to as the ''lessor'') for the use of an asset. Property, buildings and vehicles are common assets that are leased. Industrial ...

, specifically a standard tenancy as opposed to a

licence A license (or licence) is an official permission or permit to do, use, or own something (as well as the document of that permission or permit). A license is granted by a party (licensor) to another party (licensee) as an element of an agreeme ...

. 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

Rent Act 1977 The Rent Act 1977 (c. 42) was an Act of Parliament passed in the United Kingdom. The Act introduced the protected tenancy in England and Wales. The organization setting the rent, the Valuation Office Agency, was known as the "Rent Office". See ...

type tenancies which he hoped to benefit from.

Facts

Mikeover Ltd had leased 179 Southgate Rd,

London London is the capital and List of urban areas in the United Kingdom, largest city of England and the United Kingdom, with a population of just under 9 million. It stands on the River Thames in south-east England at the head of a estuary dow ...

, 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 Rent Act protection.HTML Version of Judgment
/ref> County Court held they had only licences.

Judgment

Slade LJ 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 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’. Following devoutly the likewise 1989 case of ''Stribling'', Slade LJ added:

Parker LJ with whose judgment Fox LJ and Sir Denys Buckley agreed, said:
:"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." 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 ''Stribling v Wickham'', part of the essential reasoning which led this court to its final decision.

Commentary

Academic critque published by journal: it is not clear why there is a requirement for a genuine (factual) joint tenancy t all times of occupancy when there is no such requirement for having a freehold together.

Cases approved and followed

*''Stribling v Wickham'' (EWCA, March 15, 1989, unreported)

Precedent applied

*Obiter dictum of Lord Templeman and Obiter dictum of Lord Jauncey in ''Antoniades'', below.

Cases distinguished

*'' Antoniades v Villiers'' *''

Street v Mountford 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 reason ...

Notes

{{reflist, 2 English land case law 1989 in United Kingdom case law Court of Appeal (England and Wales) cases