| 000 | 01185cam a2200217 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | X128892 | ||
| 008 | 050225n2005 000 0 eng u | ||
| 035 | _a(Sirsi) u128892 | ||
| 100 | _aMurdoch, S. | ||
| 245 | 2 | _aA definite maybe | |
| 260 | _c2005 | ||
| 490 |
_aEstates Gazette _v(0504) 5 February 2005, 201(1) |
||
| 520 | _aDiscusses how rights to use or occupy land can amount to a lease or a license, depending on whether there is an intention to confer exclusive possession of a defined area. Tenants should be aware of the differences as illustrated by two differently worded agreements in the case "Clear Channel UK Ltd v Manchester City Council" ([2004] EWHC (Ch)). The claimant argued that it held leases protected by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 Part II which gives protection providing there is reasonable physical presence considering the nature of the premises and the business. | ||
| 650 | _aCLEAR CHANNEL UK LTD V MANCHESTER CITY COUNCIL | ||
| 650 | _aLANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1954 PART II | ||
| 650 | _aSTREET V MOUNTFORD | ||
| 650 | _aCARDIOTHORACIC INSTITUTE V SHREWDCREST | ||
| 650 | _aOCCUPATION | ||
| 690 |
_aLandlord and tenant _96252 |
||
| 942 | _n0 | ||
| 999 |
_c74843 _d74843 |
||