In Leeds City Council v Broadley ([2016] EWCA Civ 1212, CA (Eng)) a landlord granted a lease for an initial fixed term of six months and thereafter continuing on a monthly basis until either party brought it to an end by one month’s notice to quit. For Council tax purposes, it made a difference whether the agreement gave rise to a single term or gave rise to two separate leases (a fixed term tenancy followed by a periodic tenancy).
The local authority argued that a single hybrid fixed / periodic tenancy was a legal impossibility since it would lack certainty of term.
This argument failed. Authorities going back to the seventeenth century showed that this kind of arrangement has long been regarded by the common law as a valid lease. The Law of Property Act 1925 (ss. 1(1) and 205(1)(xxvii)) took over the common law position (Lord Templeman in Prudential Assurance v London Residuary Body and Lord Neuberger in Mexfield Housing Co-operative v Berrisford).
According to their terms, these arrangements created a single tenancy and authority showed that this was to be regarded as a valid arrangement.
Michael Lower
