Smith and another v Northside Developments and another
Smith and another v Northside Developments and another
- 1987
- Estates Gazette 283(6351) 12 September 1987, 1211-1215(3) .
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
STREET V MOUNTFORD
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
STREET V MOUNTFORD