Image from Google Jackets

A G Securities v Vaughan ; Antoniades v Villiers

Language: English Series: New Law Journal ; (1988) NLJ 325-327(3)Publication details: 1988Subject(s): Summary: HL 10 November 1988 Two appeals against CA decision that occupiers of residential accommodation were tenants and not licencees. In the first case A G Securities (S) granted the right to occupy a furnished flat to four individual flat sharers under separate short-term agreements, termed licences . S obtained a declaration that the occupiers were merely licencees, but on appeal, CA held that the occupiers were tenants. In the second case Antoniades (A) let a flat to an unmarried couple under separate but identical agreements termed "licences" on the acceptance that if both agreements had not been signed neither would have been signed as the couple did not wish to live apart. A gave notice to quit. Couple claimed to be tenant and when A applied to cc for possession, the claim was upheld. CA upheld A`s appeal and the couple appealed to HL. Dismissing the two appeals, HL held that in the first case the four sharers were not tenants because they had arrived at different times, paid differe
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS40131 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 21668-1001

HL 10 November 1988 Two appeals against CA decision that occupiers of residential accommodation were tenants and not licencees. In the first case A G Securities (S) granted the right to occupy a furnished flat to four individual flat sharers under separate short-term agreements, termed licences . S obtained a declaration that the occupiers were merely licencees, but on appeal, CA held that the occupiers were tenants. In the second case Antoniades (A) let a flat to an unmarried couple under separate but identical agreements termed "licences" on the acceptance that if both agreements had not been signed neither would have been signed as the couple did not wish to live apart. A gave notice to quit. Couple claimed to be tenant and when A applied to cc for possession, the claim was upheld. CA upheld A`s appeal and the couple appealed to HL. Dismissing the two appeals, HL held that in the first case the four sharers were not tenants because they had arrived at different times, paid differe