Mikeover Ltd v Brady [1989] is an English land law case, concerning the definition of leases, specifically a standard tenancy as opposed to a licence. Here a licence was confirmed and upheld where two former co-habitees had fallen out and separated; removing from the remaining licensee, in arrears, the extra time to remain afforded by the old Rent Act 1977 type tenancies which he hoped to benefit from.
Attributes | Values |
---|
rdf:type
| |
rdfs:label
| - Mikeover Ltd v Brady (en)
|
rdfs:comment
| - Mikeover Ltd v Brady [1989] is an English land law case, concerning the definition of leases, specifically a standard tenancy as opposed to a licence. Here a licence was confirmed and upheld where two former co-habitees had fallen out and separated; removing from the remaining licensee, in arrears, the extra time to remain afforded by the old Rent Act 1977 type tenancies which he hoped to benefit from. (en)
|
name
| - Mikeover Ltd v Brady (en)
|
foaf:depiction
| |
dcterms:subject
| |
Wikipage page ID
| |
Wikipage revision ID
| |
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
| |
Link from a Wikipage to an external page
| |
sameAs
| |
subsequent actions
| |
transcripts
| - HTML Version of Judgment at bailii.org (en)
|
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
thumbnail
| |
caption
| |
citations
| - 21 (xsd:integer)
- 59218 (xsd:integer)
- [1989] 2 EGLR 61 (en)
- [1989] 3 All ER 618 (en)
- [1989] 40 EG 92 (en)
- [1989] EWCA Civ 1 (en)
|
court
| |
judges
| |
keywords
| |
has abstract
| - Mikeover Ltd v Brady [1989] is an English land law case, concerning the definition of leases, specifically a standard tenancy as opposed to a licence. Here a licence was confirmed and upheld where two former co-habitees had fallen out and separated; removing from the remaining licensee, in arrears, the extra time to remain afforded by the old Rent Act 1977 type tenancies which he hoped to benefit from. (en)
|
date decided
| |
decision by
| |
opinions
| - Held: These two agreements...were incapable in law of creating a joint tenancy, because the monetary obligations of the two parties were not joint obligations and there was accordingly no complete unity of interest. It follows that there was no joint tenancy. Since inter se [between themselves] Miss Guile and the defendant had no power to exclude each other from occupation of any part of the premises, it also follows that their respective several rights can never have been greater than those of licensees during the period of their joint occupation (en)
|
prior actions
| - Appellant also lost in the court below, first instance (en)
|
gold:hypernym
| |
prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
page length (characters) of wiki page
| |
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
of | |
is Wikipage redirect
of | |
is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |