Hong Kong Land Law (based on UK law) Coursework

Hong Kong Land Law (based on UK law) - Coursework exercisingThe county court denied the landlords application declaring that it was a occupancy.3The landlord appealed the county courts decision and the Court of Appeal command that despite the right to exclusive occupation the bargain itself defined a license and reflected the intentions of the parties to create a license. The matter was appealed to the House of Lords with the result that the decision rendered by the Court of Appeal was reversed. The House of Lords ruled that a right to exclusive possession for a fixed term would be deemed a tenancy provided thither were no special circumstances negating the tenancy and the parties intentions had no bearing on this presumption.4Essentially, the ratio decidendi of Street v Mountford was that exclusive possession for a fixed time at a rent was a term of a contract despite the parties express intentions and the form of the agreement. As Lord Templeman explained, distinguishing betwee n a license and a tenancy/ carry depends entirely upon the terms and conditions of occupation. Lord Templeman went on to say thatA license would arise if the agreement granted a right to occupy the land for a specific purpose, for instance the cutting go timber. However, if such a grant was merely incidental to a tenancy, it would be regarded as a require rather than a mere license.6Lord Templeman emphasised that the nature of the occupancy was therefore crucial for ascertaining whether or not upon a true construction of the agreement a license or a lease to occupy was granted. For example, previously in Abbeyfield (Harpenden) Society Ltd v Woods 1968 1 WLR 374, the defendant was a boarder in an old folks home with all the added benefit of housekeeping, meals and other services outside of mere occupation of a room. In such a situation the occupant as lodger would be a licensee since all those benefits