Having held that it was not enough for an individual to occupy the premises as a residence, Judge LeGrandeur then turned to the parties’ agreement. This mattered for the purpose of statutory tenant rights to a reasonable rent, and had a wider significance as a lease had "proprietary" status and would bind third parties. This mattered for the purpose of statutory tenant rights to a reasonable rent, and had a wider significance as a lease had "proprietary" status and would bind third parties. Found inside – Page 150exclusive possession.61 However this is not quite a litmus test, because there are some categories of exclusive licences ... When Street v. Mountford reached the House of Lords, Lord Templeman reaffirmed three essential indicia of a ... Although in Bruton, and the latter case of Kay [] and Green [] confirmed that a grantor with no interest in land can grant a personal tenancy. The respondent was the occupant of a double bedsitting-room forming part of a flat belonging to the appellant . Free trial. But the . As discussed in Aslan v Murphy, the protection of exclusive possession under the Rent Act 1977 is under scrutiny when another two cases are subject to judicial wisdom. Street v Mountford [1985] AC 805. A lease would be favourable for Mountford, giving her . There are certain reasons why . Cert term, excl. The High Court set out the relevant tests for a tenancy where written agreements stated otherwise from Street v Mountford and subsequent cases as follows (and this is worth quoting at length): (1) If an agreement confers exclusive possession of residential premises for a fixed or periodic term certain in consideration of a premium or periodical payments, then, subject to what follows, there is . Judge LeGrandeur then quoted from the leading statement of this principle in the decision of the Australian High Court in Radaich v Smith (1959), 101 CLR 209 at 22, a statement adopted by both the Supreme Court of Canada in Ocean Harvesters Ltd. v Quinlan Brothers Ltd (1974), 44 DLR (3d) 687 (CanLII) at 687-88 and the House of Lords in Street v Mountford, [1985] AC 809 at 827, [1985] UKHL 4 (BaiLII): What then is the fundamental right which a tenant has that distinguishes his position from that of a licence? Since its foundation over sixty-five years ago, The Modern Law Review has been providing a unique forum for the critical examination of contemporary legal issues and of the law as it functions in society, and today ranks as one of Europe's leading scholarly journals. Judge LeGrandeur followed this recitation of the law by noting that the primary question is therefore whether Singh was granted exclusive possession or simply a personal right to occupy the bedroom in Unit #1 (at para 45). Found inside110 Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011, 160, 166 Sealand of the Pacific v Robert C. McHaffie (1974) 51 BLR (3d) ... v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17, 155 Storey v Charles Church Developments (1997) 13 Const LJ 206, 201 Street v Mountford ... a lease), or only a licence. Street v Mountford [1985] UKHL 4 is an English land law case from the House of Lords. Facts: Mr Street, by an agreement which stated that it was a licence, granted Mrs Mountford the right to occupy rooms in a property. With a personal account, you can read up to 100 articles each month for free. Having canvassed the parties’ September 9, 2015 agreement, Judge LeGrandeur then returned to the common law and, specifically, the leading case of Street v Mountford, with its thorough review and discussion of “the question of whether the occupation of a single room is capable of being a tenancy or whether it is limited to that of an occupier by license” (at para 34). I do not disagree with Judge LeGrandeur’s conclusion that Singh was a tenant and therefore within the RTA. Download PDF. One guardian case, Camelot Guardian Management Ltd v Khoo . Filter. Here's an introduction to the basic elements of a lease…Read. Digestible Notes was created with a simple objective: to make learning simple and accessible. Street V Mountford Essay "The right to occupy land in return for payment is constant with the grant of a lease or a contractual licence, nonetheless, the implications of the two possibilities are incredibly different"(1) The explanation for this variance is because under the Land Registration Act 1925, only a lease is a authorized curiosity in land and is able of registration. Although a "modus vivendi" had been reached between landlord and occupier subsequently to 1985, no change had been made to the contractual entitlement. This item is part of a JSTOR Collection. Street v. Mountford - Reconsidered s. Robinson* 167 Law Reform Commissions often take years to analyse a legal prob­ lem, and consider a formula for change. Many types of roomers and boarders are explicitly excluded from the RTA by subsection 2(2), noted above. However, that passage does mention the residential nature of an occupation for which privacy was assured, for a term and at a rent. Judge LeGrandeur is not alone in relying on the common law to decide whether the RTA applies in a particular situation. Bookings; 4 Mountford Street. There is a rent; and 4. If a particular common law rule or body of law is in need of reform, a legislature can enact legislation to repeal or modify that rule or laws. By seeing whether the grantee was given a legal right of exclusive possession of the land for a term or from year to year or for life or lives, If he was, he is a tenant. Discuss in the context of the court's approach to the distinction between leases and licences. Found inside – Page 91Lord Templeman's judgment in Street v Mountford (1985) (overruling the intention-based approach of Somma v Hazlehurst (1978)) caused something of a stir. Not only did he propound an abstract test for distinguishing between a lease and a ... Two new videos every week (I accept requests and reply to everything! Subsection 2(2) provides that the RTA does not apply to a number of listed relationships, of which the most relevant are: In deciding whether the September 9, 2015 agreement was a “residential tenancy agreement” governed by the provisions of the RTA or an agreement between the parties creating only a licence which would not be governed by the RTA, Judge LeGrandeur began by noting that the difference between a tenancy and a licence is that in a tenancy an interest in land passes but in a licence it does not (at para 19). Discuss in the context of the court's approach to the distinction between leases and licences. Mr. Street entered into an agreement under which Mrs. Mountford would, as Mr. Street conceded, have exclusive possession of two rooms in a property owned by Mr. Street. Exclusion on which mr street v mountford or licence, lord templeman in residential accommodation is a proprietary right would have tended to court. Found inside – Page 67KEY CASE ANALYSIS: Street v Mountford [1985] AC 809 Background Mr Street granted Mrs Mountford the right to occupy two rooms for £37 per week subject to ... The test of exclusive possession is therefore one of substance and not form. Templeman: look at essense, not label (five prong implement for manual digging is a fork, not a spade) Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold. It ended with a clause declaring that the parties did not intend to create a lease. The House of Lords held that where the arrangement in question was intended to create legal relations, and the occupier was granted a right to exclusive possession of the premises for a fixed or periodic term at a rent, then a lease . RJB rented only to students and tried to create an environment that suited a student way of life on the basis that students all had a similar lifestyle and similar schedules and similar goals. One guardian case, Camelot Guardian Management Ltd v Khoo [2018] EWHC 2296 (QB), suggests a shift away from Street towards greater respect for freedom of contract and a greater readiness to find only a licence. The question for the court was whether the agreement wasn, as expressed in the agreement, a licence, or whether it was in fact a lease. There is little doubt that the five residents of Unit #1 collectively had exclusive occupation of the unit. When the forerunner of the RTA, the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1979, SA 1979, c 17, was recommended by the then Institute of Law Research and Reform (now the Alberta Law Reform Institute), the question of whether these types of lodgers should come under the recommended statute was addressed. School The University of Hong Kong; Course Title LLAW 2013; Uploaded By ProfBook1598. Exception to Street v Mountford criteria I) Facchini v Bryson. Thus, he notes that exclusive possession is secured by a tenant’s right to maintain a trespass action (at para 46, quoting Radaich), to keep out strangers, including the landlord unless the landlord is exercising the limited rights of entry, repair and viewing that he reserved (at para 47, quoting Street v Mountford), and exercise sole possession or dominant control good against the world at large (at para 48, quoting Ocean Harvesters). Wiley has partnerships with many of the world’s leading societies and publishes over 1,500 peer-reviewed journals and 1,500+ new books annually in print and online, as well as databases, major reference works and laboratory protocols in STMS subjects. Judge LeGrandeur went on (at paras 20-22) to note that although exclusive possession is essential to a tenancy, exclusive possession alone may not be enough to decide whether a tenancy or a licence has been created. The courts usually do rely on the common law in those few borderline cases, such as this one, where the question is whether the RTA applies, even though the statute appears to answer all questions about its scope. Street v Mountford [1985] AC 805. When a dispute arose, the House of Lords was asked to rule on whether this document was a licence or a lease. and Bray et al (1975), 1974 CanLII 698 (ON CA), 6 OR (2d) 129 at 157 put this idea as follows: Where a statute by its terms or by clear implication precludes the introduction of a common law rule and where the imposition of such a rule would frustrate the will of the Legislature or of Parliament as expressed in the statute, the court is not free to insist that the common law rules prevail, however, inviting it may be for a court to do so. Street v Mountford [1985] UKHL 4 is an English land law case from the House of Lords. Car Parks Street Private. Found inside – Page 192Argument in Street v Mountford was immediately followed by argument in Eastleigh BC v Walsh.47 When it came to the ... The judge in the Southampton County Court, applying Lord Denning's test, held that Mr Walsh never held a tenancy as ... Found inside – Page 1089The most important factor in Street est to the licensee in the licensed v Mountford was that the occupant was able premises . ... the key test but , in pointed out that the fact that they had felt it must not have exclusive possession . The Airport Motel argued that his occupation was under a license and there was no tenancy. He may be… an object of charity'. A lodger is a licencee as oppose to a tenant as recognised in Street v Mountford. The case doesn't fall within the list of exceptions where exclusive possession for a term at a rent doesn't make a tenancy. He succeeded under the RTA, which Judge LeGrandeur held did apply to what he found to be their landlord/tenant relationship, and he would have succeeded under a licence had Judge LeGrandeur concluded the relationship was one of licensor/licensee. The licence was then merely a . Our Customer Support team are on hand 24 hours a day to help with queries: +44 345 600 9355 Contact customer support . PDF Version: Street v Mountford Applied to Decide: A Residential Tenancy Agreement or a Licence? So the question is whether the common law of lease or licence can co-exist in harmony with section 2. Mountford.! AG SECURITIES v VAUGHAN. Found inside – Page 38In Antoniades v Villiers, this provision was never put to the test, so although it looked artificial (as it did in ... CONCLUDING REMARKS Street v Mountford is undoubtedly an important case, but it does, perhaps, settle somewhat less ... As such, the more landlords and tenants are required to research the law outside the confines of the RTA, the greater the barriers to access to justice for parties who cannot afford lawyers. Because the RTA has excluded a large variety of the lodgers and licensees that Street v Mountford and subsequent cases distinguished from tenants, is it really appropriate for a court to resort to the common law? 100% (1/1) land law land rent. Judge LeGrandeur concluded that Singh had exclusive occupation at a rent for a term and therefore the relationship was a tenancy (at para 50). He noted, among other things, that it was titled “Residential Tenancy Agreement” and defined “resident” as a person living in an assigned room in the unit (at para 25). ⇒ Lord Templeman also pointed out exceptional cases where the prima facie intention is not to create a lease, despite the fact the occupier has exclusive possession: ⇒ Also see the cases of Clear Channel v Manchester CC [2005] and Bruton v LQHT [2001] for recent applications of this case. I do think the answer to those questions might be found in subsection 2(1), which states: “Subject to subsection (2), this Act applies only to tenancies of residential premises” [emphasis added]. In Canada, under the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, parliament or a provincial legislature has the authority to repeal or modify any principles set out in case law provided that it does so in accordance with constitutional limitations: G. Gall, The Canadian Legal System, 4th ed. This article considers the test for a lease in Street v Mountford [1985] A.C. 809 (HL) and how it has been interpreted in the novel situation of property guardians. This argument is bolstered by the fact that the absence of any definition of “tenancy/ies” in the RTA was deliberate. The Institute of Law Research and Reform, Residential Tenancies, Report No. Clause 3 of that agreement stated that it was a licensing agreement and that the RTA did not apply. To access this article, please, Access everything in the JPASS collection, Download up to 10 article PDFs to save and keep, Download up to 120 article PDFs to save and keep. 27 Related Articles [filter] English land law. Found insideAs indicated earlier, the House of Lords' decision in Street v Mountford [1985] 2 All ER 289 happily signaled a “come back” to the traditional test of whether exclusive possession has been granted. Each condominium unit contained four or five bedrooms, multiple bathrooms, an entry, a kitchen, and a living room. It set out principles to determine whether someone who occupied a property had a tenancy (i.e. The case of Facchini a Bryson [1952] 1 T.L.R. Introduction Don't use plagiarized sources. The facts also had to support a lease having been entered into and that required that Cook be shown to have had exclusive possession. Abstract This article considers the test for a lease in Street v Mountford [1985] A.C. 809 (HL) and how it has been interpreted in the novel situation of property guardians. RJB became unhappy with Singh’s conduct, as well as the conduct of some visitors to his room, and, on January 15, 2016, told him that if he did not leave voluntarily the police would be called. Found inside – Page 9... in the Commonwealth Caribbean will apply the Street v Mountford test to the exclusion of the 'intention of the parties' test remains to be seen. Being a House of Lords decision, it will be regarded as a highly persuasive authority. Found inside276 See Agnew v Inland Revenue Commissioner [2001] UKPC 28, [2001] 2 AC 710, 725 [32] (Lord Millett) ('a two-stage process') ... 290 Radaich v Smith [1959] HCA 45, (1959) 101 CLR 209, 214 (McTiernan J); Street v Mountford [1985] AC 809, ... Found inside – Page 412As Lord Templeman explained in Street v Mountford [1985] AC 809 at p. ... The difficulty of applying this test for exclusive possession arises of course in borderline cases, such as Appah v Parncliffe Investments Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 1064, ... Street v Mountford [1985] AC 809 Case summary . No on other than Mrs Mountford could occupy or sleep in the room without permission. We believe that human potential is limitless if you're willing to put in the work. The 'exclusive possession' test established by the House of Lords in Street v Mountford, per Lord Templeman, was that an occupier would not be a tenant if he had no exclusive 'possession' for a 'certain' duration. It seems to me that there is at least a question as to whether or not subsection 2(2) of the RTA has spoken about which lodger-like situations and relationships are excluded from the RTA. Clause 8(d) provided that RJB “may enter the premises any time to make necessary repairs, to maintain health and safety standards, and to ensure compliance with rules, regulations and policies.” A Rules and Information Guide, made part of the September 9, 2015 agreement, reiterated that RJB “reserve[d] the right to enter student units and bedrooms” for those same purposes and concluded with the warning: “You can expect someone to enter your unit.” Specific dates for inspections were separately set out in writing and agreed to by Singh. He then stated (at para 24), in the crucial passage that allowed the common law of “lease or licence” to be relevant: Although it is necessary that the premises be residential premises, … the fact that a person occupies the premises as a resident does not mean that they do so under a residential tenancy agreement that is governed by the Act. (Appellant) JUDGMENT Die Jovis 2° Mail 1985 Upon Report from the Appellate Committee to whom was referred the Cause Street against Mountford, That the Committee had heard Counsel on Monday the 4th, Tuesday the 5th and Wednesday the 6th days of March last upon the Petition and Appeal of Wendy Mountford […] Rent is not a part of Street v Mountford test. Street V Mountford Lease Or Licence. Facts: Mr Street, by an agreement which stated that it was a licence, granted Mrs Mountford the right to occupy rooms in a property. The agreement also provided that it could be terminated by RJB if the resident withdrew or was terminated from his or her academic program at the Lethbridge College or the University of Lethbridge. If a court thinks that there is still room for the common law rules that distinguish between tenants and lodgers, borders, roomers and other licensees, then it should state its reasons for thinking so. Found inside – Page xxxiiStreet v Mountford [1985] UKHL 4, [1985] AC 809 ................................... 312–14 Suggitt v ... 359, 367, 368 Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2012] UKSC 19, [2013] 2 AC 337. May 5, 2021 / EarthCore . Nemirsky held (at para 30) that “more has to be established than the mere fact of there having been at least six consecutive months of residency” in order for the RTA to apply. This also suggests an arrangement that was much more personal in nature than the usual landlord and residential tenant relationship. The fact that it is occupied as a residence is only one consideration. The Modern Law Review After leaving, Singh lived with a friend for about five days until he found another place to live. 4 Mountford Street Street parking. Judge Nemirsky therefore held that continuous residence over six months only left open the possibility that the RTA applied, leaving room for the common law to determine if the relationship was one of landlord and tenant. R ead Street v Mountford (1985) AC 809 (Lor d T empleman's judgement) and answer the following ques tions: Mrs. Manford occupying part of a house and pa ying money to Mr. str eet, he was a solicitor and ther efore knew the law a nd didn't want her to be a. Not Covered . Alberta can do better for its residential tenants and landlords, It could enact a modern, all-inclusive statute that does away with property law concepts and adopts a power-balancing, consumer-friendly approach that addresses issues such as — to name but a few — Airbnb, retirement villages, quickly enforceable minimum housing standards, companion animals for the elderly and others, and affordable housing for the half of people with disabilities who live in shared living arrangements or rooming/boarding houses with others who are not family members (Council of Canadians with Disabilities, “As a Matter of Fact: Poverty and Disability in Canada”). All of the residents of the condominium unit, including Singh, were students. This test was put into place by Lord Templeman who explained an occupier wouldn't fail the requirements to be a tenant if they failed to have exclusive possession for a definite duration, this case since 1985 has been considered as having "marked a 'sea-change' in . And, this was the time taken by the Housein Street v. It appears to define its own scope in the following provisions: Based on subsection 2(2) and the relevant definitions, it would appear that if you are an individual occupying a place as a residence, the RTA applies to you. Street v Mountford [1985] A.C. 809 . Unit #1 was fully furnished, including dishes, pots, pans, utensils, tables, desks, beds, sofas, and chairs. Found inside – Page 552It has been doubted by Professor Kodilinye: Whether the courts in the Commonwealth Caribbean will apply the Street v. Mountford test to the exclusion of the “intention of the parties' test” remains to be seen. ... On the other hand, ... Street v Mountford [1985] AC 809. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Street v Mountford [1985] AC 809, House of Lords. It only says that the RTA shall not apply if there have been less than six months of continuous residence. Found inside – Page 298Some insight can be gained from the context within which the leading decision, Street,15 was made. This decision was made at a date ... Thus, the objective approach, which Street v Mountford,20 represents. 15 Street v Mountford [1985] 1 ... "The decision of the House of Lords in Street v Mountford in 1985 represented a sea-change in the approach of the courts" (Smith R, Property Law 6th edition (2009) p. 354, Longman Press). The Ontario Court of Appeal in Re W.D. However in doing so, the decision ofthe House in that case reveals weaknesses that are likely to cause . On that claim he was instead awarded $700 for RJB’s breach of quiet possession, inconvenience and stress. The agreement also provided RJB with the right to enter Singh’s bedroom and the common areas of the condominium unit. Summary: Whether exclusive possession creates a tenancy. None of those situations applied in this case, as noted above. In some ways, this case is typical of those that have followed Street v Mountford. Find parking charges, opening hours, postcode and a parking map of 4 Mountford Street 4 Mountford Street as well as other car parks, street parking, pay and display, parking meters and private garages for rent in Stoke-on-Trent. If the former, look at the cases overruled but more particularly realise that landlords had convinced themselves that the sort of structures used in Street v Mountfort circumvented the Rent Acts. And how is it to be ascertained whether such an interest in land has been given? Found inside – Page xliii3.23 ; 11.43 Stewart Fraser Ltd v HMRC [ 2011 ] UKFTT 46 ( TC ) ............ 2.65A , 2.65B Strand Options & Futures Ltd v Vojak ( Inspector of Taxes ) [ 2003 ] EWCA Civ 1457 , [ 2004 ] STC 64 , 76 TC 220 ...... 13.52 Street v Mountford ... This content is provided free of charge for information . Case: Street v Mountford [1985] AC 809. For example, Street v Mountford approved of a passage from Allan v Liverpool Overseers (1874) LR 9 QB 180 at 191-192, where the court said that a lodger has “the exclusive use of rooms in the house, in the sense that nobody else is to be there… yet he is not in exclusive occupation in that sense, because the landlord is there for the purpose of being able, as landlords commonly do in the case of lodgings, to have his own servants to look after the house and the furniture, and has retained to himself the occupation, though he is agreed to give the exclusive enjoyment of the occupation to the lodger” (at para 39). My guess is that he focused on subsection 2(1) which limits the scope of the RTA to “tenancies of residential premises,” with the emphasis on “tenancies,” a term undefined in the RTA. The Modern Law Review is a general, peer-refereed journal that publishes original articles relating to common law jurisdictions and, increasingly, to the law of the European Union. Mrs. Mountford applied for the registration of a fair rent under the Rent Acts . Found insideLloyds Bank v Rosset To explain the common intention test which was the Constructive trusts. main authority before Stack v Dowden and is still used today. Capehorn v Harris To ... Chapter 6 – Leases Street v Mountford To state and. EXAM QUESTION "To what extent does Street v Mountford providea good working test or deciding whether a contract for the occupations of land is a lease or a license" Types of Leases Fixed Term Lease - a lease that is entered into for a fixed term, no party can end it until end of term. The seminal case on the distinction between leases and licences is the 1985 case of Street v Mountford which identified the three distinguishing features of a lease as: exclusive possession for fixed or periodic term certain in consideration of a lump sum or periodical payments; Of these three features it is the concept of "exclusive possession" which perhaps causes the most debate between . Facts: The respondent, Street, granted a licence to the appellant, Mountford, to occupy two rooms at a weekly rent subject to 14 days' notice of termination. This content is provided free of charge for information . However, the September 9, 2015 agreement provided that RJB had the right to reassign Singh to a different condominium unit or to a different bedroom within the same condominium unit upon 48-hours notice. However, this argument is weakened by the fact that “tenant” is defined in the RTA, contrary to the Institute’s recommendation. The question for the court was whether the agreement wasn, as expressed in the agreement, a licence, or whether it was in fact a lease. In the present case, the agreement dated 7 March 1983professed an intention by both parties to create a licence andtheir belief that they had in fact created a licence. Found inside – Page 455... 361–64 Street v Mountford, 39–40, 41, 45 recharacterization, 77–78, 102 strict liability: restitutionary claims, 129, ... 38, 60–67 see also doctrinal formalism Swan v Uecker: exclusive possession test, 80 taxonomic analysis, ... Abstract This article considers the test for a lease in Street v Mountford [1985] A.C. 809 (HL) and how it has been interpreted in the novel situation of property guardians. Important Paras. Singh and RJB had the only keys to Singh’s assigned bedroom and Singh was the sole occupant of that bedroom. Judge L.E. The decision seems to conflate “exclusive possession” and “exclusive occupation”. And what of subsection 2(2), which subsection 2(1) states it is subject to? Roger Street is a solicitor. There is a rent; and 4. That suggests that RGB was there to have its officers and employees look after the conduct of the residents, as well as their use of Unit #1. That House of Lords case settled the law but shifted the conflict between freedom of contract and security of tenure from law to facts. Now 2 hours. Two schemes to avoid the payment of National Non-domestic Rates (NDR), by granting a short lease of unoccupied properties to special purpose vehicle companies (SPVs), which were then allowed to be dissolved, either by voluntary winding up or . They identified the hallmarks of a tenancy as: the grant of exclusive possession of premises. After setting out that rule, Judge LeGrandeur then strung together seven more paragraphs of quotes from Street v Mountford that restated the distinction between a tenant and a lodger in different ways (at paras 37-43). Facts: Mr Street, by an agreement which stated that it was a licence, granted Mrs Mountford the right to occupy rooms in a property. And Singh was assigned a bedroom by RJB and RGB had reserved to itself the right to assign Singh to a different unit or a different room in the same unit on 48 hours notice. Street v Mountford and the exclusive possession test Street v Mountford has now been accepted as embodying the law on differentiating between a lease and a licence.7 However, before analysing the ratio of the case and its later application, it is useful to outline the state of the law prior to that decision, as this enables a full understanding of the decision in Street v Mountford . The occupant has exclusive possession; 2. Wiley is a global provider of content and content-enabled workflow solutions in areas of scientific, technical, medical, and scholarly research; professional development; and education. In some ways, this case is typical of those that have followed Street v Mountford. possession. Nothing was to disrupt that student way of life (at para 9). The RTA is a piece of consumer protection legislation. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Aruna Nair. A further analysis of parts of Lord Templeman's judgment in Street v Mountford and a demonstration of its application can be found in the judgment of O'Connor LJ in the Court of Appeal decision in Brooker Settled Estates Limited v Ayres . Facts: In Street v Mountford, Ms. Mountford signed an agreement that was labelled "licence agreement". And the exceptions for roomers and boarders living in motel-like accommodations, nursing homes, lodges, and supportive living facilities in subsection 2(2)(d), (f), (g) and (h.1) were equally inapplicable. 9 Newham LBC v Hawkins [2005] EWCA Civ 451 [36 . Found inside... Financien v Cooperatieve Aardappelenbewaarplaats GA [1981] ECR 445 Stevens v The Durban-Roodepoort Gold Mining Company Ltd (1909) 5 TC 402 Stevenson v Queen (1865) 2 Wyatt, W and A'B 176 Street v Mountford [1985] AC 809 Stubbings v ...
Allah Loves Not The Proud And Arrogant, National Trust Weddings, Ship Security Officer Jobs Near Hamburg, Training Contract London 2022, Dog Spinal Injury Healing Time, Brighton Pride 2021 Line Up Rumours, Tribute On Death Anniversary, Cow And Gate Anti Reflux Ready Made,