In Street v Montford the House of Lords had issued a warning to the courts to 'be astute to detect and frustrate sham devices and artificial transactions whose only object is to disguise the grant of a tenancy and to evade the Rent Acts’. The vast amount of the Court of Appeal in AG Securities v Vaughan viewed the agreement between both parties as establishing a tenancy, on the premise that the occupiers had the legal right to exclusive possession of the property and in essence was protected by the Rent Act. The motion that the agreements were to be as a sham device or artificial transaction was void. The recommendation that an individual would be substituted for another was deemed as setting up a hint to give up, followed by a new tenancy. Sir George Waller failed to agree that the occupiers did not enjoy exclusive possession of the land as he stated this initiated 'serious doubts about each of the four unities’, that the agreements were not made out of pretence and that arrangements for diving the land and changed the occupiers. This holding was also carried out in the House of Lords. Being that the agreements were created separately, signed on a different basis and on different terms and could not by 'legal alchemy’ establish a joint agreement so as to collectively confer on the occupiers exclusive possession of the property as joint
In Street v Montford the House of Lords had issued a warning to the courts to 'be astute to detect and frustrate sham devices and artificial transactions whose only object is to disguise the grant of a tenancy and to evade the Rent Acts’. The vast amount of the Court of Appeal in AG Securities v Vaughan viewed the agreement between both parties as establishing a tenancy, on the premise that the occupiers had the legal right to exclusive possession of the property and in essence was protected by the Rent Act. The motion that the agreements were to be as a sham device or artificial transaction was void. The recommendation that an individual would be substituted for another was deemed as setting up a hint to give up, followed by a new tenancy. Sir George Waller failed to agree that the occupiers did not enjoy exclusive possession of the land as he stated this initiated 'serious doubts about each of the four unities’, that the agreements were not made out of pretence and that arrangements for diving the land and changed the occupiers. This holding was also carried out in the House of Lords. Being that the agreements were created separately, signed on a different basis and on different terms and could not by 'legal alchemy’ establish a joint agreement so as to collectively confer on the occupiers exclusive possession of the property as joint