Licence or tenancy ?
Language: English Series: EGCS ; 1989 98Publication details: 1989Subject(s): Summary: Aslan v Murphy (no 1) and (no 2) , Wynne and another v Duke CA 27 June 1989). Three cases in which the court decided that the words in the agreement between parties, which gave rise to licence e status were in fact a pretence and the appellants had exclusive occupancy and therefore were tenants protected under the Rent Acts Aslan v Murphy (No 1) and Murphy (No 2) , Wynne v Duke CA 27 June 1989. Three cases in which the court decided that the works in the agreement between parties, which gave rise to licencee status were in fact a pretence and the appellants had exclusive occupancy and therefore were tenants protected under the Rent Acts .| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| News article | London News article | WB2527-18 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 75992-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: News article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
| No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | ||
| WB2527-15 Proposal for brewers to lease pubs | WB2527-16 Solicitor`s negligence | WB2527-17 Tenants` Choice | WB2527-18 Licence or tenancy ? | WB2527-19 Compensation for improvements | WB2527-20 Rent review | WB2527-21 Housing in Hampshire |
Aslan v Murphy (no 1) and (no 2) , Wynne and another v Duke CA 27 June 1989). Three cases in which the court decided that the words in the agreement between parties, which gave rise to licence e status were in fact a pretence and the appellants had exclusive occupancy and therefore were tenants protected under the Rent Acts Aslan v Murphy (No 1) and Murphy (No 2) , Wynne v Duke CA 27 June 1989. Three cases in which the court decided that the works in the agreement between parties, which gave rise to licencee status were in fact a pretence and the appellants had exclusive occupancy and therefore were tenants protected under the Rent Acts .