Antiniades v villiers
Land law-Three important
Antoniades v. Villiers(1988)
The case involved an agreement for joint occupation of a furnished flat, the question being whether the occupiers enjoyed exclusive occupation. The agreement provided that each individual occupier was to share with anybody nominated by the landlord (which right the landlord never exercised), and stated that only a licence was conferred on each occupant. The agreement was drawn up a month before the House of Lords decision in Street v. Mountford, and on the assumption that Somma v. Hazelhurst was good law.
The occupiers were a couple sharing a flat with only one bedroom, with a double bed (provided by the landlord, at the express request of the occupiers). Each agreement was entered into at the same time, and was on the same terms, including the amount of the rent.
Held in the CA
The Court of Appeal held that the occupiers did not enjoy exclusive occupation, and were licensees. Among the reasons for the decisions were that:
1. In construing the agreement, regard should not be had to the subsequent conduct of the parties.
2. A sham is defined as where the agreement does not reflect the common intention of the parties. Here there was no common intention, since whereas the occupiers may have intended to create a joint tenancy the landlord clearly did not.
3. It was not conceivable that if one of the occupants had moved out, the other occupant had agreed to pay the entirety of the rent due.
4. The landlord's right to put somebody else into occupation was not impracticable (as it was in Somma v. Hazelhurst), because there were rooms in the flat apart from the bedroom, and there were other beds.
Held in HL
The House of Lords reversed the Court of Appeal decision, holding that although each contracted on the basis that they were sharing with the landlord's nominee, they had exclusive occupation and hence were joint tenants. See further AG Securities v Vaughan (the two appeals were consolidated).
Lord Templeman's conclusion on Antoniades was that there was a joint tenancy because:
"(1) The applicants for the flat applied to rent the flat jointly and to enjoy exclusive occupation. (2) The landlord allowed the applicants jointly to enjoy exclusive occupation and accepted rent. A tenancy was created. (3) The power reserved to the landlord to deprive the applicants of exclusive occupation was inconsistent with the provisions of the Rent Acts. (4) Moreover in all the circumstances the power which the landlord insisted upon to deprive the applicants of exclusive occupation was a pretence only intended to deprive the applicants of the protection of the Rent Acts."
Antoniades v. Villiers(1988)
The case involved an agreement for joint occupation of a furnished flat, the question being whether the occupiers enjoyed exclusive occupation. The agreement provided that each individual occupier was to share with anybody nominated by the landlord (which right the landlord never exercised), and stated that only a licence was conferred on each occupant. The agreement was drawn up a month before the House of Lords decision in Street v. Mountford, and on the assumption that Somma v. Hazelhurst was good law.
The occupiers were a couple sharing a flat with only one bedroom, with a double bed (provided by the landlord, at the express request of the occupiers). Each agreement was entered into at the same time, and was on the same terms, including the amount of the rent.
Held in the CA
The Court of Appeal held that the occupiers did not enjoy exclusive occupation, and were licensees. Among the reasons for the decisions were that:
1. In construing the agreement, regard should not be had to the subsequent conduct of the parties.
2. A sham is defined as where the agreement does not reflect the common intention of the parties. Here there was no common intention, since whereas the occupiers may have intended to create a joint tenancy the landlord clearly did not.
3. It was not conceivable that if one of the occupants had moved out, the other occupant had agreed to pay the entirety of the rent due.
4. The landlord's right to put somebody else into occupation was not impracticable (as it was in Somma v. Hazelhurst), because there were rooms in the flat apart from the bedroom, and there were other beds.
Held in HL
The House of Lords reversed the Court of Appeal decision, holding that although each contracted on the basis that they were sharing with the landlord's nominee, they had exclusive occupation and hence were joint tenants. See further AG Securities v Vaughan (the two appeals were consolidated).
Lord Templeman's conclusion on Antoniades was that there was a joint tenancy because:
"(1) The applicants for the flat applied to rent the flat jointly and to enjoy exclusive occupation. (2) The landlord allowed the applicants jointly to enjoy exclusive occupation and accepted rent. A tenancy was created. (3) The power reserved to the landlord to deprive the applicants of exclusive occupation was inconsistent with the provisions of the Rent Acts. (4) Moreover in all the circumstances the power which the landlord insisted upon to deprive the applicants of exclusive occupation was a pretence only intended to deprive the applicants of the protection of the Rent Acts."
Very important case of land law.Mexico Vacation Package
ReplyDeleteBelize Real Estate & most of all Ambergris Caye Real Estate have seen a boom over recent years. Most of the buyers are people looking at living and/or investing overseas. This is seen by the growth in Belize real estate transactions over recent years.
ReplyDelete