A troubled question
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (0520) 21 May 2005, 259(1)Publication details: 2005Subject(s): Summary: Discusses the concept of dual occupation in relation to recent case law, in particular "Smith v Titanate Ltd" ([2005] 20 EG 262). In this case, the claimant landlord sought a declaration that the defendant tenant (under a lease exceeding 35 years) was protected by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954: the tenant argued that it was not. The court had to decide whether the defendant was occupying the flats for the purpose of its business. The case was decided in favour of the defendant but the judge discussed what the decision would have been had the residential occupiers had been found to be licensees. Considers earlier case law.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | L129888 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 129888-1001 |
Discusses the concept of dual occupation in relation to recent case law, in particular "Smith v Titanate Ltd" ([2005] 20 EG 262). In this case, the claimant landlord sought a declaration that the defendant tenant (under a lease exceeding 35 years) was protected by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954: the tenant argued that it was not. The court had to decide whether the defendant was occupying the flats for the purpose of its business. The case was decided in favour of the defendant but the judge discussed what the decision would have been had the residential occupiers had been found to be licensees. Considers earlier case law.