Image from Google Jackets

Hadjiloucas v Crean

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; 284(6360) 14 November 1987, 927-40(7)Publication details: 1987Subject(s): Summary: CA 29 July 1987 Appeal against cc decision granting possession to the landlord of an unfurnished flat . The appellant and a friend had entered into a licence agreement with the landlord to share the flat for a term of six months. After about two months the friend left and her place was taken by someone else who remained in the flat until the expiry of the term. The appellant continued to stay in the flat, refusing to sign a new licence agreement at a higher rent and subsequently obtained a registered fair rent. The landlord obtained a possession order which the appellant was now contesting. The cc judge, believing himself to be applying the criteria in the Street v Mountford decision, held that as the appellant`s occupation under the licence was not exclusive she could not be a tenant and he did not explore the question whether the agreements could have constituted a joint tenancy . After discussion CA held there were not sufficient findings by the cc judge to enable it to decide whe
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS38432 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 10535-1001

CA 29 July 1987 Appeal against cc decision granting possession to the landlord of an unfurnished flat . The appellant and a friend had entered into a licence agreement with the landlord to share the flat for a term of six months. After about two months the friend left and her place was taken by someone else who remained in the flat until the expiry of the term. The appellant continued to stay in the flat, refusing to sign a new licence agreement at a higher rent and subsequently obtained a registered fair rent. The landlord obtained a possession order which the appellant was now contesting. The cc judge, believing himself to be applying the criteria in the Street v Mountford decision, held that as the appellant`s occupation under the licence was not exclusive she could not be a tenant and he did not explore the question whether the agreements could have constituted a joint tenancy . After discussion CA held there were not sufficient findings by the cc judge to enable it to decide whe