Mikeover Ltd v Brady

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.
Facts.
Mikeover Ltd had leased 179 Southgate Rd, London, N1, and then let it out to Mr Brady and Miss Guile. They each signed separate but identical ‘licence’ agreements allowing them to share for six months for £86.66 a month. After the sixth months expired they were allowed to remain on the same terms. Miss Guile moved out early 1986, telling Mr Ferster, the Mikeover Ltd director, in April 1986. Mr Brady offered to continue to pay £173.32 in rent. Mr Ferster replied ‘I can’t accept it. I’ll hold you responsible for your share only.’ But Mr Brady still fell into arrears for his half, and Mikeover Ltd tried to remove him in early 1987. He claimed he had a lease of the flat to get Rent Act protection.
County Court held they had only licences.
Judgment.
Slade LJ held they had only licences. There was exclusive possession in common with the other occupier, but there was no unity of interest, and no joint tenancy, and the limitation on payments to their own shares was pivotal. This meant the arrangements were incapable of creating a joint tenancy because the obligations were not joint. There was no sham. It was established that there must be the four unities present, of possession, interest, title and time, and there was no unity of interest because there was only a several obligation for payment of the rent. That requires the existence of ‘joint rights and joint obligations’.
Following devoutly the likewise 1989 case of "Stribling", Slade LJ added:
Parker LJ with whose judgment Fox LJ and Sir Denys Buckley agreed, said:<br>
The entire inconsistency with a joint tenancy of a provision rendering each licensee responsible only for one third of the total required by the landlord was, as we read "Stribling v Wickham", part of the essential reasoning which led this court to its final decision.
Commentary.
Academic critque published by journal: it is not clear why there is a requirement for a genuine (factual) joint tenancy [at all times of occupancy], when there is no such requirement for having a freehold together.