Topic
Leasehold estate
About: Leasehold estate is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 1589 publications have been published within this topic receiving 21480 citations. The topic is also known as: leasehold & tenancy.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
TL;DR: This paper conducted a study on eviction proceedings involving social housing tenants in Australia and found that the very factors that make someone eligible for social housing in Australia simultaneously put them at risk of eviction.
Abstract: Social housing is reserved for the most vulnerable tenants, yet social housing tenants are subject to the same residential tenancy laws as private tenants and may even be held to a higher standard of behaviour. As a result, social housing tenants are at high risk of eviction. This article reports on the results of a mixed methods study on eviction proceedings involving social housing tenants. The study involved textual analysis of 98 published judgments and focus group research with 43 tenants’ advocates. It was found that the very factors that make someone eligible for social housing in Australia simultaneously put them at risk of eviction. This research suggests that the law provides limited protection against eviction to homelessness. Despite the importance of individuals’ interests in having a home, rights-based arguments are generally ineffective in this context.
TL;DR: In this article , a more-than-political economy approach is used to conceptualise an agonistic politics of housing value in Australia, that is, capitalist regimes of real estate value as the dominant value regime, Indigenous cultural values tied to land and housing and care ethics and human rights as housing discourse.
Abstract: Housing’s values are a key topic of public and policy debate, with discussions including the social value of housing in the form of human rights or care, rising property values, value-capture in infrastructure development, Indigenous values of land, and the value of housing for social reproduction. With this in mind, we engage with the various ways housing is valued, not as a reductive exercise to find ‘the value’ of housing but to recognise and engage with the ways various valuations of housing inform a situated and relational politics of value. The analysis is concerned with how people make valuations about housing as well as how these different housing valuations intersect to constitute a politics of housing values. It is a common reduction to associate housing with its economic value and home with social values. Attempts to reconcile these values typically involve proxy valuations to commensurate the social to the economic. However, value pluralists resist such easy reduction of social values to the market, holding that plural values are incommensurable. Our more-than-political economy approach draws on anthropology and moral philosophical theories of value to conceptualise an agonistic politics of housing value. To illustrate this conceptual case, we discuss three regimes of value in Australia, that is, capitalist regimes of real estate value as the dominant value regime, Indigenous cultural values tied to land and housing and care ethics and human rights as housing discourse. These cases highlight the processes of value realisation, not just within these regimes of value, but within and between them, to animate an agonistic tournament of housing’s value. We are interested in the politics within and between these different claims about value and argue the utility of value theory is to show how value is produced through the politics of competing value claims, rather than to try to show what the value of housing as-an-object is.
TL;DR: In this paper , the authors analyse recent English decisions reviving the need to consider the lease/licence dichotomy and conclusiveness of the parties' agreement in the new context of property guardianship as an alternative to private renting.
Abstract: This article analyses recent English decisions reviving the need to consider the lease/licence dichotomy and conclusiveness of the parties’ agreement in the new context of property guardianship as an alternative to private renting. It argues that context has proved instructive in interpreting the parties’ agreement elsewhere in the case law and offers a way forward in the hard cases amid the ongoing search for doctrinal clarity and justification. A compound subjective–objective approach appreciates the underlying purpose of the parties’ relationship and justifies why no intention to grant the right of exclusive possession can be present, thereby precluding a tenancy. The article briefly considers reforms to rental accommodation previously suggested by the Law Commission and, in light of the continued need to prove the status of lessee, argues that they should be revisited in order to protect those living in temporary accommodation.
TL;DR: In this paper , the authors trace back to what had been adjudicated by the House of Lords in Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council v Monk [1992] 1 AC 478 (HL) three decades ago, scrutinize the sufficiency of a line of authorities developed since then and as they were applied in Procter and Pile, and venture to suggest that the statutory trust is one of its own kind deserving wider and deeper study beyond traditional trust analysis and why.
Abstract: Abstract The commercial world runs itself through an intricacy of legal relationships amongst which a tenancy may be one of the most common. The statutory law of the United Kingdom superimposes a trust over every tenancy so that each co-tenant is deemed to be a trustee of each other. Can a co-tenant then ditch his/her cohorts and extinguish a periodic tenancy only to re-contract with the landlord over the very property without committing a breach of trust? This was considered not long ago in Procter v Procter [2022] EWHC 1202 (Ch) and most recently in Pile v Pile [2022] EWHC 2036 (Ch). We trace back to what had been adjudicated by the House of Lords in Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council v Monk [1992] 1 AC 478 (HL) three decades ago, scrutinize the sufficiency of a line of authorities developed since then and as they were applied in Procter and Pile, and venture to suggest that the statutory trust is one of its own kind deserving wider and deeper study beyond traditional trust analysis and why.