Mikeover Ltd v Brady
Language: English Series: New Law Journal ; 139(6422) 8 September 1989, 1194-1196(3)Publication details: 1989Subject(s): Summary: CA 26 May 1989. At issue was whether two tenants of a residential property held a joint tenancy or licence . Two individuals signed identical agreements which allowed them the right of exclusive joint occupation of the flat - each liable for paying a separate deposit and to pay a separate sum in rent. Eventually one of them moved out and B remained in occupation. When B fell into arrears, a possession order was brought against him on the basis that he was only a licensee. B claimed he was a statutory tenant under the Rent Act, and appealed. Held: the tenant was not entitled to a statutory tenancy. For a joint tenancy to exist, there had to be a unity of interest which included a joint and several obligation to pay the entire rent.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS41421 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 30043-1001 |
CA 26 May 1989. At issue was whether two tenants of a residential property held a joint tenancy or licence . Two individuals signed identical agreements which allowed them the right of exclusive joint occupation of the flat - each liable for paying a separate deposit and to pay a separate sum in rent. Eventually one of them moved out and B remained in occupation. When B fell into arrears, a possession order was brought against him on the basis that he was only a licensee. B claimed he was a statutory tenant under the Rent Act, and appealed. Held: the tenant was not entitled to a statutory tenancy. For a joint tenancy to exist, there had to be a unity of interest which included a joint and several obligation to pay the entire rent.