Search for: "Mountford"
Results 41 - 60
of 69
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Nov 2012, 11:25 am
They are derived from a licence given to the agency by the property owner.If we take this at face value, and put aside thoughts of Street v Mountford and Bruton v London & Quadrant Housing Trust [2000] 1 AC 406, then these may indeed be licences to occupy, rather than tenancies.But what of the two week notice period to terminate the occupier’s licence asserted by many of these Property Guardian firms (for example here, here, here and here)? [read post]
22 Nov 2012, 11:25 am
They are derived from a licence given to the agency by the property owner.If we take this at face value, and put aside thoughts of Street v Mountford and Bruton v London & Quadrant Housing Trust [2000] 1 AC 406, then these may indeed be licences to occupy, rather than tenancies.But what of the two week notice period to terminate the occupier’s licence asserted by many of these Property Guardian firms (for example here, here, here and here)? [read post]
11 Sep 2012, 11:46 pm
Mountford, decided that if someone has exclusive occupation at a rent then it is a tenancy whatever it says on the piece of paper the occupiers sign. [read post]
6 Jun 2012, 11:20 pm
Mountford which set out the three elements: Exclusive occupation of property For a fixed or periodic term At a rent Now in your case there is a term and a rent, but no exclusive occupation. [read post]
15 Nov 2011, 1:00 am
By implication, this amounted to a monthly periodic tenancy in accordance with the decision in Street v Mountford [1985] AC 809. [read post]
10 Nov 2011, 1:42 am
Berrisford v Mexfield Housing Co-operative Ltd (Rev 1) [2011] UKSC 32What happens to a lease for an uncertain term? [read post]
10 Nov 2011, 1:42 am
Berrisford v Mexfield Housing Co-operative Ltd (Rev 1) [2011] UKSC 32What happens to a lease for an uncertain term? [read post]
11 Oct 2011, 10:49 pm
Mountford. [read post]
29 Sep 2011, 8:29 am
By implication, this amounted to a monthly periodic tenancy in accordance with the decision in Street v Mountford [1985] AC 809. [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]
13 Jun 2011, 11:36 pm
Mountford which was decided in 1985. [read post]
17 Dec 2010, 8:37 am
The locus classicus on this point is, of course, Street v Mountford where Lord Jauncey noted that the question is whether the agreement is “mere dressing up in an endeavour to clothe the agreement with a legal character which it would not otherwise have possessed. [read post]
4 Nov 2010, 12:53 am
While bizarre to the outsider, this ritual actually takes the form of a Mornington Crescent-style game, in which the aim is to get to Street v Mountford before somebody plays Puhlhofer and ruins the whole thing. [read post]
4 Nov 2010, 12:53 am
While bizarre to the outsider, this ritual actually takes the form of a Mornington Crescent-style game, in which the aim is to get to Street v Mountford before somebody plays Puhlhofer and ruins the whole thing. [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]
23 Jun 2010, 2:50 am
Austin v London Borough of Southwark [2010] UKSC 28 It has been a long story for Mr Austin and a long, long, long story for the tolerated trespasser. [read post]
23 Jun 2010, 2:50 am
Austin v London Borough of Southwark [2010] UKSC 28 It has been a long story for Mr Austin and a long, long, long story for the tolerated trespasser. [read post]
20 May 2010, 12:53 am
The decision made I had to get a job and took a lettings negotiator job at Mountfords in Surbiton, Surrey. [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]
23 Apr 2010, 1:32 am
Mountford in 1985. [read post]
