Mikeover Ltd v Brady
Two occupiers of a flat who each agreed to pay a separate sum, and were not jointly liable for the whole rent, were licensees, not joint tenants.
Facts
Mr Brady and Miss Guile occupied a flat owned by Mikeover under separate but identical agreements, signed at the same time. Each agreement made the occupier liable for half the total payment only, and gave each the right to use the flat in common with one other person. When Miss Guile left, Mr Brady continued to pay only half, and the landlord did not seek to make him pay the full amount. Mr Brady later claimed to be a protected tenant.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that Mr Brady was a licensee. Slade LJ said that the agreements were genuine, not shams, and that the obligations to pay were separate, so there was no unity of interest between the occupiers. Without unity of interest, they could not be joint tenants. Since neither of them had exclusive possession individually, neither could be a tenant on his or her own.
Related cases on leases and licences
- AG Securities v Vaughan; Antoniades v Villiers [1990] 1 AC 417
- Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold [1989] Ch 1
- Aslan v Murphy [1990] 1 WLR 766
- Berrisford v Mexfield Housing Co-operative Ltd [2011] UKSC 52, [2012] 1 AC 955
- Binions v Evans [1972] Ch 359
- Bruton v London & Quadrant Housing Trust [2000] 1 AC 406
- Errington v Errington and Woods [1952] 1 KB 290
- Facchini v Bryson [1952] 1 TLR 1386
Studying land law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
