Ms Brown wanted a flat to live in. Mr White owned a flat but would only let it to a company because a company would not be entitled to the protection afforded to individuals under thetenancy protectio 1


Ms Brown wanted a dull to feed in. Mr White owned a dull but would singly let it to a order consequently a order would not be entitled to the refuge afforded to identicals lower thetenancy refuge synod then in hardness. Ms Brown, at Mr White’s impulse,incorporated the order Ajax Ltd. Ajax Ltd rented the dull for six months from Mr White lower a lease conformity which gave Ajax Ltd the just to identicalize the tenant of the characteristic. Ajax Ltd identicalized Ms Brown as tenant. The lease conformity was aback sufficient for three months following which Mr White asked for occupation. (Under the tenancy refuge synod, Mr White would not bear been effectual to do this had the dull been let to an identical.) Ms Brown refused to liberty. When sued by Mr White, Ms Brown contended that the order was a ghost to miss the tenancy refuge synod and that the lease was surely between her and Mr White.

Advise Ms Brown of the juridical top and her chances of luck.

Show past

Source join