A troubled question
Murdoch, Sandi
A troubled question - 2005 - Estates Gazette (0520) 21 May 2005, 259(1) .
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.
SMITH V TITANATE LTD
BAGETTES LTD V GP ESTATES CO LTD
LEE-VERHULST (INVESTMENTS) LTD V HARWOOD TRUST
WILLIAM BOYER AND SONS LTD V ADAMS
GRAYSIM HOLDINGS LTD V P AND O PROPERTY HOLDINGS LTD
A troubled question - 2005 - Estates Gazette (0520) 21 May 2005, 259(1) .
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.
SMITH V TITANATE LTD
BAGETTES LTD V GP ESTATES CO LTD
LEE-VERHULST (INVESTMENTS) LTD V HARWOOD TRUST
WILLIAM BOYER AND SONS LTD V ADAMS
GRAYSIM HOLDINGS LTD V P AND O PROPERTY HOLDINGS LTD