Image from Google Jackets

Smith and another v Northside Developments and another

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; 283(6351) 12 September 1987, 1211-1215(3)Publication details: 1987Subject(s): Summary: CA 11 May 1987. An appeal by the occupiers(S), and a cross-appeal by the owners(N) from a county court decision. At issue was whether S occupied shop premises under a licence or tenancy . S were co-occupiers with a third party of a shop in Camden Lock Market. S and the third party carried out their respective businesses on different sides of the premises. The third party left, and S took over the whole space paying the other half of the rent, after making an oral agreement with N. The question as to legal occupancy arose when S were given notice to leave within seven to eight days. S claimed they had obtained an exclusive right to occupation. The county couret rejected this claim, but held that S` licence was not properly terminated by the length of notice given, and that a reasonable period was one month. S appealed against the decision on exclusive possession , and N cross-appealed against the length of notice. The CA held that no evidence existed which showed there was an argument
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS38188 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 9090-1001

CA 11 May 1987. An appeal by the occupiers(S), and a cross-appeal by the owners(N) from a county court decision. At issue was whether S occupied shop premises under a licence or tenancy . S were co-occupiers with a third party of a shop in Camden Lock Market. S and the third party carried out their respective businesses on different sides of the premises. The third party left, and S took over the whole space paying the other half of the rent, after making an oral agreement with N. The question as to legal occupancy arose when S were given notice to leave within seven to eight days. S claimed they had obtained an exclusive right to occupation. The county couret rejected this claim, but held that S` licence was not properly terminated by the length of notice given, and that a reasonable period was one month. S appealed against the decision on exclusive possession , and N cross-appealed against the length of notice. The CA held that no evidence existed which showed there was an argument