Ahoy, 'Dinty Moore', your time is up
Series: NLJ Practitioner ; 151(6976) 23 March 2001, 419-420(2)Publication details: 2001Subject(s): Summary: Offers an in-depth discussion of the issues raised in "Chelsea Yacht and Boat Company Ltd v Pope" and the implications of the CA's ruling. This involved the issue of whether the letting of a houseboat constituted a tenancy of a dwelling-house, according to the Housing Act 1988 Part 1. The CA judge considered two issues: whether the houseboat was a chattel and thus incapable of being the subject of a tenancy, and argued that the houseboat was not a dwelling-house. Permanence and the purpose of annexation were important factors in this case. Gives details of other cases in which the issue of annexation arose, if in different contexts.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS63728 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 111748-1001 |
Offers an in-depth discussion of the issues raised in "Chelsea Yacht and Boat Company Ltd v Pope" and the implications of the CA's ruling. This involved the issue of whether the letting of a houseboat constituted a tenancy of a dwelling-house, according to the Housing Act 1988 Part 1. The CA judge considered two issues: whether the houseboat was a chattel and thus incapable of being the subject of a tenancy, and argued that the houseboat was not a dwelling-house. Permanence and the purpose of annexation were important factors in this case. Gives details of other cases in which the issue of annexation arose, if in different contexts.