You must answer two questions but these can be on the same topic.
Explain the effect, both at law and in equity of the following transactions (ignoring security of tenure granted by statute):
(a) A lease for ten years at a rent of £10.00 per week, paid weekly, which was created by an oral agreement on the 1st April 2021. The tenant, Jyoti, moved into the premises on the 2nd April 2021. Jyoti has undertaken substantial improvements at her own cost on the basis that she will be in occupation for a lengthy period of time.
The original landlord, Jav, has now sold the freehold reversion to Fatima who would like the tenant, Jyoti, to vacate the premises immediately. Fatima has yet to register her purchase of the freehold reversion. Jyoti refuses to leave until the ten year term of the lease has expired and shows Fatima an email exchange between herself and Jav evidencing the oral agreement made on the 1st April 2021.
(b) Bob, the freehold owner of a three bedroomed house, has allowed Sue to take occupation of the house under an agreement described as a ‘Lease’ in return for a monthly rental payment of £500. The lease agreement stipulates that Bob may allow up to two other people of his own choosing to share the house with Sue. Bob has retained keys to the house and has just given a set of keys to Sue’s best friend, Kate, to allow her to share occupation of the house with Sue. This will be a surprise for Sue
who does not know that Bob and Kate have made these arrangements.
In Street v Mountford [1985] 2 WLR 877 Lord Templeman observed: “An occupier of residential accommodation at a rent for a term is either a lodger or a tenant. The occupier is a lodger if the landlord provides attendance or services which require the landlord or his servants to exercise unrestricted access to and use of the premises.”
Critically analyse this statement by reference to statute and case law and critically assess whether or not this observation remains valid
In 2019, Ahmed took a loan of £110,000 from Dogegg Bank plc. The loan is secured by a legal charge on Ahmed’s registered freehold house.
In 2020, Ahmed took a loan of £60,000 from Midland Bank plc, secured by a legal charge on the same property.
The charges were registered at the Land Registry in the order that they were created. Ahmed is in temporary financial difficulty due to a reduction in working hours. He will be able to make loan repayments to Dogegg Bank plc for the foreseeable future but is already in three month’s arrears of his loan repayment to Midland Bank plc. Ahmed is considering stopping payment of his buildings insurance policy to save money and is also considering selling the house. According to a local estate agent, Ahmed’s house is currently worth in the region of £170,000.
1. Critically assess whether either Dogegg Bank plc or Midland Bank plc may take possession of and sell Ahmed’s house having regard to the facts above.
2. In what circumstances would Ahmed be able to successfully defend any possession proceedings.
3. If Ahmed is unable to defend possession proceedings and the house is sold by Midland Bank plc at a public auction for £160,000 then consider whether Ahmed might have a claim against Midland Bank plc for not achieving a sale price of £170,000.
4. How would your answer to the questions above differ (if at all) if Ahmed arranged for a paying lodger to move into the house in January 2022 to help pay the bills.
‘The issues raised by these appeals make it necessary to go back to first principles. Undue influence is one of the grounds of relief developed by the courts of equity as a court of conscience. The objective is to ensure that the influence of one person over another is not abused. In everyday life people constantly seek to influence the decisions of others. They seek to persuade those with whom they are dealing to enter into transactions, whether great or small. The law has set limits to the means properly employable for this purpose.’
Critically analyse the above statement of Lord Nicholls in Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Etridge [2001] UKHL 44 in the context of the operation of the principle of undue influence in relation to mortgages of land.
