000			01387cab a2200241 4500
001			L129888
008			050602n2005 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u129888
041			_aeng
100			_aMurdoch, Sandi
245		2	_aA troubled question
260			_c2005
490			_aEstates Gazette _v(0520) 21 May 2005, 259(1)
520			_aDiscusses the concept of dual occupation in relation to recent case law, in particular "Smith v Titanate Ltd" ([2005] 20 EG 262). In this case, the claimant landlord sought a declaration that the defendant tenant (under a lease exceeding 35 years) was protected by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954: the tenant argued that it was not. The court had to decide whether the defendant was occupying the flats for the purpose of its business. The case was decided in favour of the defendant but the judge discussed what the decision would have been had the residential occupiers had been found to be licensees. Considers earlier case law.
590			_aIKA070605
650			_aSMITH V TITANATE LTD
650			_aBAGETTES LTD V GP ESTATES CO LTD
650			_aLEE-VERHULST (INVESTMENTS) LTD V HARWOOD TRUST
650			_aWILLIAM BOYER AND SONS LTD V ADAMS
650			_aGRAYSIM HOLDINGS LTD V P AND O PROPERTY HOLDINGS LTD
690			_aPROPERTY-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY-RESIDENTIAL LANDLORD AND TENANT-RESIDENTIAL LEASES
942			_n0
999			_c75325 _d75325