Search for: "Mountford"
Results 21 - 40
of 69
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Sep 2016, 2:03 pm
“Lawful rights to take possession (…) INCLUDING THE COMMON LAW RIGHT TO PHYSICALLY REMOVE YOU, YOUR POSSESSIONS FROM THE Property” “The police are aware of your trespass on this land” And, my favourite bits: “We would bring to your attention the case of Street v Mountford. [read post]
19 Feb 2020, 11:05 pm
Mountford. [read post]
23 Oct 2018, 1:45 pm
Camelot Guardian Management Ltd v Khoo (2018) EWHC 2296 (QB) (Not on Bailii for some reason. [read post]
31 Jul 2019, 11:54 pm
Mountford Those three are the videos up there at the moment, and you can see the third video below, to give you an idea. [read post]
27 Apr 2015, 11:29 pm
Mountford) is that you have ‘exclusive occupation’ of the rented property (even if this is just a room) and are entitled to keep out everyone, including the landlord (save for a few exceptions such as police with warrants etc). [read post]
27 Oct 2010, 2:41 am
Supreme Court Cadder v Her Majesty’s Advocate (Scotland) [2010] UKSC 43 (26 October 2010) Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Constantine, R. v [2010] EWCA Crim 2406 (26 October 2010) T, R. v [2010] EWCA Crim 2439 (26 October 2010) Wakeling, R. v [2010] EWCA Crim 2210 (15 September 2010) Qayum, R. v [2010] EWCA Crim 2237 (16 September 2010) Cooper, R. v [2010] EWCA Crim 2335 (20 September 2010) Nuthoo, R. v [2010] EWCA Crim 2383 (05 October 2010) Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Various… [read post]
15 Jan 2017, 8:53 am
The argument seems to be a classic Street v Mountford one – that regardless of the description in the agreement of this being a licence (not ‘lease’ as the Bristol Post rather confusing has it), the factual situation was exclusive possession, for a term, for a rent and therefore a tenancy. [read post]
2 May 2010, 11:31 pm
Mountford that if the occupier: Has exclusive possession of the property Pays rent (which does not have to be a market rent), For a term (a specified period of time, which can be ‘periodic’ ie from week to week or from month to month) then the occupier will normally have a tenancy, and the fact that they have signed a piece of paper with ‘license agreement’ written at the top, will be irrelevant. [read post]
14 Sep 2016, 11:58 pm
As was laid down in the case of Street v, Mountford in 1985, you cannot turn a tenancy into a license by getting the occupier to sign a piece of paper saying this. [read post]
3 Apr 2007, 1:38 pm
One anthropologist, Charles Mountford, did some fifty years of research on the Anangu and then published a book containing the stories, Nomads of the Australian Desert, which was promptly banned in Australia by an Australian court-issued injunction because it described rituals sacred to the Anangu, including photographs, and put their stories in writing. [read post]
29 Mar 2007, 7:32 am
It also has a cast of ‘wannabees’: The hapless (or hopeless), public school types, a couple of wonderfully shifty ones on the make and, of course, the real stars - “The Board” - Sir Alan, Margaret Mountford and Nick Hewer. [read post]
29 Dec 2016, 1:05 am
It is an exception to the Street v Mountford rule that an occupier with exclusive possession has a tenancy because, as Sir John Vinelott put it in Gray v Taylor [1998] 1 WLR 1093: “The trustees have power to permit – indeed, are under a duty to permit – a selected almsperson to occupy rooms in the almshouse. [read post]
20 Jun 2011, 10:49 pm
Mountford discussed there, which is the authority for the rule that one of the features of a tenancy is ‘exclusive occupation’, is a prime example of how Judges make (or ‘clarify’) the law. [read post]
3 Jan 2017, 3:28 pm
(Or perhaps Camelot have purportedly served notice – we have seen Camelot’s problems with compliant notices before and I have just seen another London based example in the last few days) Now, I don’t know if the guardian defendants are legally represented – though trying to argue that they are tenants of the council would suggest not (after all, Bruton v London & Quadrant would be on point) – but it does sound like there might be arguments over a… [read post]
23 Oct 2016, 11:18 pm
Mountford in 1985 which said that where an occupier has ‘exclusive occupation’ of the property (including a let of a room) this cannot be a license. [read post]
10 Jul 2018, 11:30 pm
Mountford discussed there, which is the authority for the rule that one of the main features of a tenancy is ‘exclusive occupation’, is a prime example of how Judges make (or ‘clarify’) the law. [read post]
23 Aug 2016, 11:46 pm
Mountford (1986) and the legal principle of ‘Parol’ you don’t need a written tenancy agreement in order to be a tenant. [read post]
25 Jan 2017, 12:21 am
Mountford that if the occupier: Has exclusive possession of the property Pays rent (which does not have to be a market rent), For a term (a specified period of time, which can be ‘periodic’ ie from week to week or from month to month) then the occupier will normally have a tenancy, and the fact that they have signed a piece of paper with ‘license agreement’ written at the top, will be irrelevant. [read post]
21 Mar 2023, 1:28 am
Mountford, the landlord’s intention was to grant a residential licence but the Court decided otherwise). [read post]
29 Jan 2017, 11:50 pm
Mountford case). [read post]
