Search for: "Mountford"
Results 41 - 60
of 69
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Jul 2018, 11:36 pm
Mountford (1985) also helps by telling us that there are three hallmarks of a tenancy:- Rent or service For a clear term Exclusive possession So if all three are in place there will generally be a tenancy in force (there are exceptions). [read post]
27 Jun 2017, 12:10 am
Mountford and Judge Templeman’s famous comments about a spade being a spade, regardless of whether the landlord chose to call it a fork. [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]
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]
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]
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]
22 Jul 2021, 1:26 am
Mountford. [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]
30 Aug 2018, 12:41 am
Mountford put that one to bed. [read post]
22 Jul 2021, 1:26 am
Mountford. [read post]
29 Oct 2023, 11:58 am
On these findings, and in the light of the decision in Street v Mountford, it is apparent that NHS PS had granted Global Guardians a tenancy of the Stamford Brook property. [read post]
The appearance of a substantial defence in possession claims, and property guardians and possession.
6 Dec 2021, 2:56 pm
As per Street v Mountford: “There can be no tenancy unless the occupier enjoys exclusive possession; but an occupier who enjoys exclusive possession is not necessarily a tenant. [read post]
14 Mar 2018, 8:51 am
In other words, if the VA were to actually settle an entire appeal at the CAVC – which is as rare as a 3 dollar nickel – or start including language in its JMR or JMPRs that the decision is not appealable (Author’s Note: as of April 11, 2018, the OGC has started to include waivers of appeal in their JMRs: click here to read the Joint Motion to Remand in Mountford v. [read post]
20 Jul 2021, 1:16 pm
On the Street v Mountford characterisation of a tenancy, i) there was rent, ii) there was no evidence that exclusive occupation was not enjoyed by the tenants. [read post]
4 Oct 2022, 9:27 am
Mountford ‘exclusive occupation’ is one of the hallmarks of a tenancy. [read post]
14 May 2018, 3:38 pm
Street v Mountford [1985] AC 809 and Antoniades v Villiers; A-G Securities v Vaughan [1990] AC 417, HL. [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]
23 Dec 2020, 12:50 pm
London Borough of Southwark v Ludgate House Ltd & Anor (2020) EWCA Civ 1637 This is the Court of Appeal judgment on what has been a long running dispute between Southwark and Ludgate House Ltd as to the rates to be paid on Ludgate House, an office block in Southwark. [read post]
1 Mar 2020, 1:04 pm
The Claimant argued Street v Mountford (1985) 1 AC 809, [1985] UKHL 4 and so that “the only intention which is relevant is the intention demonstrated by the agreement to grant exclusive possession for a term at a rent”. [read post]
17 Apr 2019, 1:23 am
Mountford. [read post]
