Street v Mountford 
- Street granted Mountford the right to occupy two rooms in his house, with exclusive possession, for a weekly rent and determinable on 14 days’ notice
- Street had Mountford sign a declaration that the right to occupy constituted a licence and not a lease
- Mountford sought a declaration that the agreement constituted a lease
- Was the agreement a lease?
- A lease can be defined as the grant of exclusive possession for a term at a rent (although rent is not strictly required)
- A court is entitled to look behind the label given to an agreement to decide whether in fact a lease was granted, but disguised as a licence
- The agreement here was clearly a lease, therefore Mountford was entitled to legislative protection under landlord and tenant legislation
- This case put an end to ‘sham’ licences, reversing cases such as Somma v Hazlehurst 
- For context to the lease vs licence debate in land law, go to land law notes on leases
Posted in Land Law Revision Notes.
This page was last updated on 3rd April 2015