Property Law and Express Trust - Essay Example

An occupier under license has no right to remain in the property and can be removed very quickly. Here it is to be noted that the main characteristics which differentiate an agreement as lease or license are exclusive possession of the property, period of occupancy and time span of serving notices. In Radaich v Smith(1), it was decided that exclusive possession provides 'the proper touchstone' of a lease or tenancy, asserting that anything which negated an occupier's right to exclusive possession, meant no lease existed, simply a license.

The aspect of "exclusive possession of the property was explained in the recent and famous case Street Vs Mount ford (2) as" the crucial determinant of whether a lease or license exists is whether or not the person has been granted exclusive possession of premises. " In the given case, Botolphs investments gave Micawber the only the right to use the ground unit or room of the building for certain purposes, not the exclusive possession of whole building. Here, the provisions in the agreement do not confer any exclusive possession of room on Micawber.

If the agreement is lease, Micawber entitled to have possession of whole building. Moreover there can be a question arises regarding the time period of occupancy. . A license gives someone access to and the use of whatever rooms (or equipment) the owner gives them license to use, but does not give a right to use that space exclusively. An occupier under license has no right to remain in the property and can be removed very quickly. 2 Here it is to be noted that the main characteristics which differentiate an agreement as lease or license are exclusive possession of the property, period of occupancy and time span of serving notices.

In Radaich v Smith(1), it was decided that exclusive possession provides 'the proper touchstone' of a lease or tenancy, asserting that anything which negated an occupier's right to exclusive possession, meant no lease existed, simply a license. The aspect of "exclusive possession of the property was explained in the recent and famous case Street Vs Mount ford (2) as" the crucial determinant of whether a lease or license exists is whether or not the person has been granted exclusive possession of premises.

" In the given case, Botolphs investments gave Micawber the only the right to use the ground unit or room of the building for certain purposes, not the exclusive possession of whole building. Here, the provisions in the agreement do not confer any exclusive possession of room on Micawber. If the agreement is lease, Micawber entitled to have possession of whole building. Moreover there can be a question arises regarding the time period of occupancy.

Here Micawber occupied the unit in November 2002, and the occupancy will be determined as per the notice on October 2007. But