Smith and another v Northside Developments Ltd and another
Language: English Series: Property and Compensation Reports ; (1988) 55 PCR 164-170(7)Publication details: 1988Subject(s): Summary: CA 11 May 1987. In 1982 the appellants (S) co-occupied shop premises, initially as licensees. In 1983 the co-occupier left and the defendants (N) orally agreed with S that they could occupy the premises on their own. Subsequently N tried to terminate S`s right to occupy by means of a notice to quit in seven days. S claimed that the license had become a tenancy as they had acquired exclusive occupation . The CC held that S had a license and not a tenancy but that the reasonable period of notice in the circumstances should be one month. The CA held that the licence had not not been converted into a tenancy by sole-occupation and that the appropriate period of notice was one month.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS39071 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 14223-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
CA 11 May 1987. In 1982 the appellants (S) co-occupied shop premises, initially as licensees. In 1983 the co-occupier left and the defendants (N) orally agreed with S that they could occupy the premises on their own. Subsequently N tried to terminate S`s right to occupy by means of a notice to quit in seven days. S claimed that the license had become a tenancy as they had acquired exclusive occupation . The CC held that S had a license and not a tenancy but that the reasonable period of notice in the circumstances should be one month. The CA held that the licence had not not been converted into a tenancy by sole-occupation and that the appropriate period of notice was one month.