Requirements for Leases Features of Leases

*
Can all be sold or assigned to purchasers o Although will normally need consent of Landlord to do this

*
Are normally an estate recognised by Law o They allow enjoyment of land for a fixed period of time o Two tenancies which are not estates though:
? Tenancy at Will
? Tenancy at Sufferance Requirements of Leases

*
Rent o Normally a feature, but a Lease can exist without rent.
? Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold [1989]:

*
Fox LJ: Lord Templeman could not have meant that you needed rent as well as exclusive possession o Indeed, this would be contrary to LPA 1925 s.205(1) (xxvii) which states that lease can exist "whether or not rent"

*

*

o Courts will also try to give effect to agreements where parties specify rent will be agreed in the future
? Agreements to agree won't stand

*
References to market value at different times will suffice

*
Or that rent will change from year to year will also be okay. Commencement o Leases must have a certain beginning (and a certain ending)
? LPA s.149(3): Lease may either commence immediately or up to 21 years upon agreement as parties stipulate

*
s.205 (1) (xxvii): Leases that don't commence immediately = "future estates"

*
BUT LRA 2002 s.4(1)(d) says that such leases need to be registered to bind purchasers of future leased land - they are not overriding interests.
? However, contracts for leases are not covered by this statutory requirement

*
Thus, you can agree by contract in 2005 to grant a lease in the year 2030, to take effect in 2035 o Cos only five years passes between the grant and commencement.

*
Smith: convenient result of this is that covenants to renew long leases are valid o As a covenant to renew a lease exceeding 21 years will invariably be exercised more than 21 years from date of covenant Length o While parties can agree on whatever length they wish for a lease
? This must be certain and fixed at the time of commencement, although it need not be certain at grant

*

*

Law is concerned only with maximum duration, however o So lease can legitimately be terminated before this duration for forfeiture. o While Law will not strike down periodic tenancies for a lack of certainty (i.e. where L and T agree that T will take possession and pay rent for a week/month/year at a time, terminable by each party depending on notice) it will strike down anything else:
? Prudential Assurance Co v London Residuary Body [1992]: N sold strip of land in front of shop to X which then leased it back to N until road widening project went forward. This never went forward and in 1988 LRB (successor to X) attempted to stop P, as successor in title, from using the land.

*
Lord Templeman (maj): o S.205(1)(xxvii) holds that terms of years absolute =
? term of years either certain or liable to determination by notice, operation of law or on provision of redemption or any other event

*
term here does not fall within this definition o The possession and rent paying of the "tenant" under the void lease created an implied periodic yearly tenancy which can be ended by six months notice
? But this cannot give effect to the term which only allows the landlord to give notice to quit on the road widening

*
This would contradict concept that a grant for an uncertain term does not create a lease.

*
Lord Browne Wilkinson (dis): o N's successors in title will now be left with the freehold of some retail premises which don't look out onto street
? Bizarre outcome comes from ancient and technical rule of law who nobody has ever shown any point to. Exclusive Possession o Every lease must involve exclusive possession
? Smith: other factors, such as term and rent, may disappear, as in tenancies at will or sufferance
? But exclusive possession is so fundamental a requirement it is rarely challenged.

*
Street v Mountford [1985]: C agreed with M that M, in exchange for PS37 a week, could have exclusive occupation of two rooms. The agreement described itself throughout as a license, and either party was entitled to terminate the agreement by giving 14 days notice. o Lord Templeman:
? Fact that both parties appear to intend that they both should only have a personal right is irrelevant

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Land Law Notes.