Property guardians: reigniting the lease/licence battle?

Dean Taylor
{"title":"Property guardians: reigniting the lease/licence battle?","authors":"Dean Taylor","doi":"10.53386/nilq.v74i2.1097","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article analyses recent English decisions reviving the need to consider the lease/licence dichotomy and conclusiveness of the parties’ agreement in the new context of property guardianship as an alternative to private renting. It argues that context has proved instructive in interpreting the parties’ agreement elsewhere in the case law and offers a way forward in the hard cases amid the ongoing search for doctrinal clarity and justification. A compound subjective–objective approach appreciates the underlying purpose of the parties’ relationship and justifies why no intention to grant the right of exclusive possession can be present, thereby precluding a tenancy. The article briefly considers reforms to rental accommodation previously suggested by the Law Commission and, in light of the continued need to prove the status of lessee, argues that they should be revisited in order to protect those living in temporary accommodation.","PeriodicalId":83211,"journal":{"name":"The Northern Ireland legal quarterly","volume":"92 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Northern Ireland legal quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.53386/nilq.v74i2.1097","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article analyses recent English decisions reviving the need to consider the lease/licence dichotomy and conclusiveness of the parties’ agreement in the new context of property guardianship as an alternative to private renting. It argues that context has proved instructive in interpreting the parties’ agreement elsewhere in the case law and offers a way forward in the hard cases amid the ongoing search for doctrinal clarity and justification. A compound subjective–objective approach appreciates the underlying purpose of the parties’ relationship and justifies why no intention to grant the right of exclusive possession can be present, thereby precluding a tenancy. The article briefly considers reforms to rental accommodation previously suggested by the Law Commission and, in light of the continued need to prove the status of lessee, argues that they should be revisited in order to protect those living in temporary accommodation.
物业监护人:重新点燃租赁/牌照之争?
本文分析了最近英国的决定,重新考虑了在财产监护作为私人租赁替代方案的新背景下,租赁/许可证二分法和当事人协议的结论性的必要性。它认为,事实证明,上下文在解释判例法中其他地方的当事人协议方面具有指导意义,并在不断寻求教义清晰度和正当性的过程中,为疑难案件提供了一条前进的道路。主观-客观复合方法理解了双方关系的根本目的,并证明了为什么不存在授予独占权的意图,从而排除了租赁。该条简要地审议了法律委员会以前建议的租赁住房改革,鉴于仍然需要证明承租人的地位,该条认为应重新审议这些改革,以保护住在临时住房中的人。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信