Aslan V. Murphy (No.1) [1990] 1 Wlr 766 and Aslan V. Murphy (No.1) [1990] 1 Wlr 766 Case Study
Case Name and Citation: Aslan v. Murphy (No.1) [1990] 1 WLR 766
Court: Court of Appeal
Judges: Lord Donaldson of Lymington M.R. , Butler-Sloss and Stuart-Smith L.JJ.
Decision of Lower Courts: The decision was favour of the defendant (Murphy). It was held that the occupant is a tenant, not a licensee.
Decision: Appeal Allowed,
-------------------------------------------------
The case concerned land with leases and licences
Case Name and Citation: Mikeover v. Brady [1990) 59 P. & C.R. 218
Court: Court of Appeal
Judges: Slade L.J. and Lincoln J.
Decision of Lower Courts: The decision was in favour of the Claimant (Mikeover). It was held that the occupant is a licensee, not a tenant.
Decision: Upheld in Court of Appeal
-------------------------------------------------
The case concerned land with leases and licences
Importance of the Cases (1500 words maximum)
Under the Property Law Act, licences and leases are legal estates. The landmark case of Street v Mountford, established the test for distinguishing lease, tenancy from licence. House of Lords held that intention to create legal relations gives right to exclusive possessions of the property. In Aslan v. Murphy(No.1) and Duke v. Wynne, both claimants argued that the defendants were licensees and were seeking possession of the premises. In Aslan v. Murphy(No.2), claimant further argued that the local authority had made a closing order, and was successful in obtaining the property. An agreement described as a licence does not prevent it from being a lease, provided that 3 characteristics are present. However, only the intention to grant exclusive possession is relevant. Furthermore, in Mikeover v. Brady, there were arguments from both parties claiming whether the agreement was that of a licensee or a tenancy.
It is not always clear whether an agreement is a licence or a lease. In Street v. Mountford, it was seen that many circumstances such as no exclusive possession or legal relations would mean the
Court: Court of Appeal
Judges: Lord Donaldson of Lymington M.R. , Butler-Sloss and Stuart-Smith L.JJ.
Decision of Lower Courts: The decision was favour of the defendant (Murphy). It was held that the occupant is a tenant, not a licensee.
Decision: Appeal Allowed,
-------------------------------------------------
The case concerned land with leases and licences
Case Name and Citation: Mikeover v. Brady [1990) 59 P. & C.R. 218
Court: Court of Appeal
Judges: Slade L.J. and Lincoln J.
Decision of Lower Courts: The decision was in favour of the Claimant (Mikeover). It was held that the occupant is a licensee, not a tenant.
Decision: Upheld in Court of Appeal
-------------------------------------------------
The case concerned land with leases and licences
Importance of the Cases (1500 words maximum)
Under the Property Law Act, licences and leases are legal estates. The landmark case of Street v Mountford, established the test for distinguishing lease, tenancy from licence. House of Lords held that intention to create legal relations gives right to exclusive possessions of the property. In Aslan v. Murphy(No.1) and Duke v. Wynne, both claimants argued that the defendants were licensees and were seeking possession of the premises. In Aslan v. Murphy(No.2), claimant further argued that the local authority had made a closing order, and was successful in obtaining the property. An agreement described as a licence does not prevent it from being a lease, provided that 3 characteristics are present. However, only the intention to grant exclusive possession is relevant. Furthermore, in Mikeover v. Brady, there were arguments from both parties claiming whether the agreement was that of a licensee or a tenancy.
It is not always clear whether an agreement is a licence or a lease. In Street v. Mountford, it was seen that many circumstances such as no exclusive possession or legal relations would mean the
Bibliography: Books April Stroud, Making Sense of Land Law (2nd, Palgrave Macmillan, 2008) Sandra Clarke, Sarah Greer , Land Law Directions (3rd, OUP, 2012) Cases A.G. Securities v. Vaughan [1990] A.C. 417; [1988] 3 W.L.R. 1205; [1988] 3 All E.R. 1058, H.L.(E.) Antoniades v Clear Channel UK Ltd v Manchester City Council [2005] EWCA Civ 1304 (09 November 2005) Crancour v da-silvesa [1986] 1 EGLR 80 Mikeover Ltd. v Brady (1990) 59 P. & C.R. 218 National Car-parks ltd v Trinity Development Co (banbury) [2001] ewca civ 1686 http://www.oup.com/uk/orc/bin/9780199284436/resources/cases_materials/bychapter/chap_17.pdf Law Commission (2006), Renting Homes (Law Com 297) Journals Colbey R, (2001) "Detecting a Sham", New Law Journal 151.7006 (1612) [ 22 ]. A.G. Securities v. Vaughan [1990] A.C. 417; [1988] 3 W.L.R. 1205; [1988] 3 All E.R. 1058, H.L.(E.) [ 23 ]