Search for: "State v. Mountford"
Results 1 - 19
of 19
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Apr 2008, 8:36 am
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Ibrahim & Ors, R v [2008] EWCA Crim 880 (23 April 2008) Clarke v R [2008] EWCA Crim 651 (23 April 2008) Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Campaign To End All Animal Experiments (t/a The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection), R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 417 (23 April 2008) Green Lane Products Ltd v PMS International Group Plc & Ors [2008]… [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… [read post]
18 Mar 2024, 3:27 am
The case of Street v. [read post]
14 Jun 2015, 11:04 pm
In that case, Mrs Mountford signed an agreement which stated that she had a license. [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]
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]
11 Mar 2013, 12:12 am
In the Street v. [read post]
19 Feb 2020, 11:05 pm
Mr Street rented rooms to Mrs Mountford, under an agreement which specifically stated that she accepted that she was renting under a license rather than a tenancy. [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]
14 Mar 2018, 8:51 am
United States, 531 F.3d 1367 (Fed. [read post]
5 May 2009, 3:56 pm
(v) No period of time was offered to FRE at the meeting on 16 June to remedy the various defects in the properties of which complaint was made. [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]
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]
17 Dec 2010, 8:37 am
The principle, sometimes called the rule on maintenance of capital, was authoritatively stated by the House of Lords in Trevor v Whitworth, and has been subsequently applied both by the courts and in statutory provisions. [read post]
10 Nov 2011, 1:42 am
The tenancy agreement stated that it was a ‘tenancy from month to month’. [read post]
10 Nov 2011, 1:42 am
The tenancy agreement stated that it was a ‘tenancy from month to month’. [read post]
29 Jan 2017, 11:50 pm
Mountford case). [read post]
9 Jun 2021, 1:39 pm
We are satisfied that the agreement created a tenancy between Croydon and Camelot, Camelot having exclusive occupation of the Property for a term and at a rent (see Street v Mountford (1985) AC 809). [read post]
