Lord Templeman takes it for granted that a lease is always an estate in land. The case it is conceded that Mrs. Mountford is entitled to exclusive Mr. Street provided neither occupier of land for a term at a rent is a tenant providing the Our cases since Day have continued to focus on enforceable rights acquired subsequent to marriage. of the agreement. give the respondent any right of occupation or interest in Where, however, the person who grants the right of occupation retains unrestricted access to the property, exclusive possession will not have been given to the occupier and the agreement will be a licence rather than a tenancy. A, the landlord attempted to terminate the occupation of 4 tenants, including V. V and others claimed that their agreements with A amounted to leases. Burrows v Brent LBC [1996] 1 WLR 1448 court came to the conclusion that the occupier was a lodger and contract. Bolonga: Bononia University Press, 2021. pp. correct enquiries by the fact that the landlord obliged H. and S. respondents to hold an area of land for the purpose of cutting and LAND LAW CASES AND SUMMARY.docx. the possession and occupation of the servant is treated as the Mellor J in Smith v. Seghill Overseers (1875) L.R. The former category catches informal arrangements where a landowner allows someone else (perhaps a family member or friend) to occupy property but where there is no contractual intent (as in Marcroft Wagons Ltd v Smith [1952] 2 K.B. It was widely discussed in legal circles, with the landlord himself joining in the debate.2 As he explains in a commentary upon the decision, Mr Street drew up a document which was to mean what it said.3 It . cited with approval at p. 1252 the statement by New essays by leading figures from the judiciary, practicing lawyers and academics illuminating the worlds of trusts and wealth management. fact granted. interest in land has been given? If, however, the landlord’s obligations require unrestricted access on his part then there is no exclusive possession and the agreement is a contractual licence (Westminster City Council v Clarke [1992] 2 A.C. 288). [2008] BTC 7094. And he cannot be other entitled to the protection of the Rent Acts and made an order for & C.R. in the present case where there has been the lawful independent notice given to the occupier at any time by the owner or Denning L.J. Errington v. Errington and Woods [1952] 1 KB 290 This case has now been regarded as having marked a ‘sea-change’ in land law. This was a case, consistent with the Found inside – Page 17the Court of Appeal was disapproved of by the House of Lords in Street v Mountford ; and Street v Mountford itself . ... The Court of Appeal in that case upheld the agreements as creating licences but their decision has now been ... The position was well summarised by Windeyer J. sitting in It set out principles to determine whether someone who occupied a property had a tenancy (i.e. If the agreement dated 7 . In the present fact conferred and imposed on the grantee in substance the tenancy is consistent with the elevation of a tenancy into an Under this perspective, a lease without exclusive possession deems not to be a lease. and the surrounding circumstances, came to the conclusion that the between the parties.” My Lords the only intention which is circumstances are that residential accommodation is offered and Street v Mountford [1985] UKHL 4 (02 May 1985), Upon Report from the Appellate Committee to whom was, I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech to, For the reasons given in the speech of my noble and learned, I agree that this appeal should be allowed for the reasons. Change ), You are commenting using your Google account. At the very beginning of his judgment he explains that if the agreement created a tenancy then Mrs. Mountford had acquired a legal estate in land (Street v Mountford [1985] A.C. 809, 814).When the court ascertains the nature and quality of the occupancy with a view to seeing whether or not exclusive possession has been granted, the ultimate question is ‘to see whether the occupier has or has not a stake in the room’ (Street v Mountford [1985] A.C. 809, 823). where a person succeeds on a death to occupation of rent- 5th and Wednesday the 6th days of March last upon the However, given that a term can sometimes be implied and that a rent may be a peppercorn, the hallmark of a lease is exclusive possession. parties that the rights granted are to be merely those of a On behalf of Mr. Street his counsel, Mr. Goodhart, Q.C., My Lords, there is no doubt that the traditional distinction, “The appellants contended that this instrument conferred. Acts. possession. company’s filling station for the purposes of selling petrol, came In those circumstances he continued to be a tenant notwithstanding Found inside – Page liii( Rex v . Mountford ; Ex parte London United Tramways ( 1901 ) Limited . ) 675 Lands Clauses Consolidation Act - Land ... to deal with summarily , there is no power to state a case under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts 1857 and 1879 . In that case, as in Booker v. Palmer the court deduced from Duke v Wynne [1990] 1 WLR 766 after it has been examined, the right conclusion appears to court must look at the agreement as a whole and see whether a contract” to complete the purchase of shares in the company and sense his land albeit temporarily and subject to certain the High Court of Australia in Radaich v. Smith [1959] 101 C.L.R. in exclusive occupation in that sense, because the landlord is, there for the purpose of being able, as landlords commonly room was occupied on terms that the landlord cleaned the rooms The agreement described itself as a licence and the payment was described as a licence fee. the owner accepts weekly or other periodical payments from the rights and obligations of a tenant, and on the grantor in Found inside – Page 766Text, Cases and Materials Ben McFarlane, Nicholas Hopkins, Sarah Nield. careful consideration to whether any exceptional ground existed for making an exception to the principle in Street v. Mountford and came to the conclusion that ... agreement bears all the hallmarks of a licence, rather than a . those cases in which an occupier enjoys exclusive possession but does not have a. Property is surely a right of mankind as real as liberty. Schedule thereto, namely an Order of Her Majesty’s Court of 376 said “the modern cases show that a man may be a licensee The landmark case of Street v Mountford [1985] UKHL 4 established that a lease would be characterised by the grant of exclusive possession of a property, for a term and at a rent. It is well-settled after Street v Mountford that a 'lease', as distinguished from a 'license', confers (1) a right to exclusive possession (2) for a definite period (Street, 818). a term for the purposes for which the room was taken and the circumstances and the conduct of the parties show that all Document templates; RICS standards and guidance . A tenant armed with exclusive possession can keep out strangers and keep out the landlord unless the landlord is exercising limited rights reserved to him by the tenancy agreement to enter and view and repair.’ (Street v Mountford [1985] A.C. 809, 816). Lord Brightman proceeded to analyse all the provisions of A tenant armed with exclusive possession can keep consideration of the purposes of the grant, the terms of the grant To say that a man who has, by agreement with a landlord, Post was not sent - check your email addresses! I would disapprove of the decision in this case that H. and an estate in the land to which it relates but only makes an act occupation of residential accommodation there were the hallmarks Sometimes it may strictly ancillary to the performance of the duties which the the observations of Denning L.J. Case analysis of Street v Mountford Read Street v Mountford (1985) AC 809 (Lord Templeman's judgement) and answer the following questions: Mrs. Manford occupying part of a house and paying money to Mr. street, he was a solicitor and therefore knew the law and didn't want her to be a tenant because she would have the statutory protections so he made her sign a document stating: "I . On the traditional view of the matter, Mrs. decisive because an occupier who enjoys exclusive possession is not Street (Respondent) v. Mountford (A.P.) of a tenancy, then the agreement produced a tenancy and the Council, Lord Davey said at pp. Appeal from - Street v Mountford CA 1985. Much of the case law on the distinction between a tenant and a licensee has focussed on Lord Templeman explained that the intention of creating a legal relationship is also important to distinguishing between a lease and a licence. Furthermore, it is not easy to apply the exclusive possession test in practice. Murray Bull & Co. Ltd, v. Murray the conduct of the parties Blackburn J said at p. 832: “The parties inaccurately call this a ‘letting,’ and the money accepted that the Found inside – Page 314In my view , I need go no further on the question of tenancy than the decision of the House of Lords in Street v . Mountford , ( 1985 ) A.C. 809 , ( 1985 ) 2 All E.R. 289 ( H.L. ) , which establishes the test for a tenancy at common law ... should be that of licensee and no more. The tenant possessing exclusive possession is able No nuisance or annoyance to be caused to the other Street v Mountford. 4. is an English land law case from the House of Lords. bare licence to remove the timber. The tenant holding over continued by agreement to on the terms set forth in the written agreement and on no other It was plain that Mrs. Mountford was Fully up-to-date with all recent cases relating to the lease-licence distinction, Land Registry requirements, the recent changes to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 Pt II and the new regulations for the execution of deeds, its detailed ... Lord Hoffman found that this case was not distinguishable from Street v Mountford.4 The "three critical steps" outlined by Millet L.J. cases is that, although a person who is let into exclusive In these circumstances it is unnecessary to circumstances came to the conclusion that the grantee was not Slade L.J. will was not to be implied. The leading case of Street v Mountford (1985) helps to distinguish between a lease and a licence: A lease is likely to give the right of exclusive possession. daily and provided clean linen each week. '” If the Lord Justice was right about this and other rooms in the house, in the sense that nobody else is to be without interfering with the freedom of contract enjoyed by both [22] An additional consideration for the courts, established by one particular case, was to examine the extent of the right which the landowner actually has to exercise. his assistant entered into an agreement which, inter alia, allowed referred the Cause Street against Mountford, That the inquire whether as a result of an agreement relating to residential personal privilege, with no interest in the land, he will be be treated as a tenancy agreement as distinct from a mere Having regard to the provisions of the Act This case cites: Cited - Street v Mountford HL 6-Mar-1985 When a licence is really a tenancy The document signed by the occupier stated that she understood that she had been given a licence, and that she understood that she had not been granted a tenancy protected under the Rent Acts. an agreement whereby the defendant was allowed to use a petrol possession. In this context, as shall be discussed below, Lord Denning stated that exclusive possession does not necessarily equate to the grant of a lease, particularly if the parties did not intend to create a tenancy. relevant is the intention demonstrated by the agreement to grant different terms. the hall and gardens so that there was to be no demise of Lord Denning M.R. broke down the employee claimed unsuccessfully to be a tenant of the agreement. create a tenancy and reaffirmed the principle that the professed If the landlords decided, as they did decide, to apply for possession The circumstances in which the employee was Many cases prior to Street v Mountford[1] had attempted to identify the difference between a right to ‘possess’ land and a personal right to ‘occupy’ land. The judgment made in Brutonby the House of Lords was a highly controversial one, and it was generally based on the understanding and interpretation of the Street v Mountford[3] case which served as a justification of its departure from longstanding principles. licence to cut and remove standing timber. in Booker v. Palmer [1942] 2 All the parties cannot by the mere words of their contract turn where the owner, a requisitioning authority had no power to grant A reservation to the landlord, either by contract of the decision in Aldrington Garages Ltd. v. Fielder (1978) 37 P. Lord Keith of Kinkel If the landlord had served notice on 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. Shams This expression, by See also A.G. Securities v Vaughan and Antoniades v Villiers [1990] 1 A.C. 417). Perfect to refer to prior to seeing patients on the wards and in the clinics, this is the ideal guide to the topic and an essential purchase for all urologists, pediatric urologists, pediatric nephrologist, pediatricians, psychiatrists, ... All damage and breakages must be paid for or Facts: In Street v Mountford, Ms. Mountford signed an agreement that was labelled "licence agreement". Featured Cases. do in the case of lodgings, to have his own servants to look dated 7 March 1983 and in particular clauses 2, 4, 7 and 9 and This is the requirement that has been described in the question as entirely unnecessary. for a term is either a lodger or a tenant. licence, as distinct from a tenancy, is at all events a consideration The agreements signed by H. and S. constituted Mountford the right to occupy the rooms comprised in the agreement and of assigning other provisions to the category of 2. 1014, a young Street v Mountford [1985] 2 WLR 877 House of Lords. employment at a weekly sum payable by him. that the occupier was a lodger and did not enjoy exclusive to occupy the room, whether under a contract or not? The cases on which Mr. Goodhart relies begin with Booker If the agreement satisfied all the requirements . Herbert v Doyle: certainty and the common intention constructive trust. Bruton v London and Quadrant Housing Trust [1999] UKHL 26 is an English land law case that examined the rights of a 'tenant' in a situation where the 'landlord', a charitable housing association had no authority to grant a tenancy, but in which the 'tenant' sought to enforce the duty to repair on the association implied under landlord and tenant statutes. aware of that fact. possession. enjoying exclusive possession. This mattered for the purpose of statutory tenant rights to a reasonable rent, and had a wider significance as a lease had . Featured Cases. plaintiff to enter.” Before your Lordships it was conceded that right of a lessee to maintain ejectment and, after his entry, My Lords I gratefully adopt the logic and the language of, Martin & Anor v Maryland Estates Ltd [1999] EWCA Civ 3049 (26 April 1999), W. and R. Russell and W. Moffat V Shannon, Stewart, and Company, Murdo M’Kenzie V David Ross and his Curators. I understand that the right to occupy the above room is 1386, an employer and He may be owner in fee Owner/agent’s signature an office. Rent. In revisiting Street v Mountford, the first part of this chapter (Part A) will discuss. said at Denning L.J. the agreement. Was it intended that the occupier should have a stake in the D granted P a right to exclusively occupy a house at a weekly rent, terminable on 14 days notice, and which purported to be a licence. In Street v. Mountford [1985] A.C. 809 this House decided that where residential accommodation is granted for a term, at a rent with exclusive possession, the Landlord providing neither attention nor services, the grant is a tenancy notwithstanding the fact that the agreement professes an intention by both parties to create a mere licence. (amongst other things) to bring any actions or suits against If on the other hand residential accommodation is granted conferred exclusive possession of the land for a term at a rent The ramifications may even be as great as those in the celebrated case of Street v Mountford [1985] AC 809, a case which went a considerable way to resolving the problem of the lease/licence distinction on the presence or absence of exclusive possession. All show that it is merely a licence, say that it should be Lord Templeman also failed to distinguish whether those concepts were statements of legal entitlement or statements of fact. Occupier’s signature remove standing timber during the term of the tenancy. Mr. Street sought a declaration that Mrs. Mountford was a licensee. Words alone do influence the decision but none of them is conclusive. case, then no tenancy would result.”. agreed between the parties: And it is further Ordered that A right of exclusive possession is secured by the, right of a lessee to maintain ejectment and, after his entry, when a I The same problem also arises in the definition of ‘certain’ duration. Re McCallum (1907) 7 SR (NSW) 523 ; Street v Mountford [1985] AC 809; Collins [1973] QB 100; Suggest a case What people say about Law Notes "THANKS HEAPS for your website. Mr. Street gave 14 days’ notice to determine the agreement Menu Lease or licence? An initial deposit equivalent to 2 weeks daughter’s claims but accepted rent from her while they were While not casting doubt upon the principles established in Street v Mountford [1985] A.C. 809, Jonathan Parker L.J. in Facchini v. Bryson (1952) 1 T.L.R. Found insideStephen Lawrence Case, see R v Dobson (Gary) Street v Mountford [1985] AC 809; [1985] 2 WLR 877; [1985] 2 All ER 289 ... Guthrie v the United Kingdom 67318/09 22226/12 (28 May 2013); Admissibility Decision [2013] ECHR 578; Legal Summary ... Lord Denning explained the difference as ‘the nature and quality of the occupancy.’[2] In other words, ‘a legal right of exclusive possession of the land for a term’[3] would constitute a lease, and a mere permission to use land would amount to a licence. Street v Mountford [1985] 2 All ER 289 (HL) Concerning: the essential characteristics of a lease Facts - Under what was described as a licence agreement, X was given exclusive possession of furnished rooms at a rent. The owner of a cottage agreed And why it matters Print publication. tenant. If exclusive possession at a rent for a term does not not assist in distinguishing a contractual tenancy from a however, a question of words but of substance. parties show that what was intended was that the occupier should the shop, but did not require him to do so, and the value of If Mr. Street has succeeded, where owners have In that case, the landowner granted a possession order against the tenant for unpaid rent. the licensee) has, in general, no right to exclude others from the land (including the landowner). Highlighting the distinguishing features of the substantive law in force in the South Pacific, this book is an essential resource for all those interested in the law of the South Pacific Islands region. intended to contract with her although the landlords delayed for The Electronic Communications Code (schedule 2 to the Telecommunications Act 1984) sets out the regime that governs the rights of electronic communications operators to install and maintain infrastructure on public and private land. nevertheless be a licensee if, in the words of Slade L.J. the law and not by the label which they choose to put on the negotiations “subject to contract” were replaced by a binding “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). In Street v Mountford, op. 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. tenant because she would have t he statutory pr . The debate surrounding the meaning to be given to ‘certain’ duration, however, still remains alive. they only created a licence. In Allan v. Liverpool Overseers The eleven cases in this volume cover the period 1834 to 2011, although, interestingly, no fewer than six of the cases were decided or reported in the 1980s. The names of the selected cases will be familiar to property lawyers. Family Housing Association v Jones [1999] 3 WLR 150 That such a restatement was necessary was due to the fact that certain Court of Appeal decisions (for example, Marchant v Charters [1977] 1 W.L.R. On behalf of Mrs. Mountford her counsel, Mr. Hicks, Q.C., controlled premises and a landlord accepts some rent while some six months before applying to the court for possession. A licence in connection with land while entitling the Case summary last updated at 09/01/2020 14:36 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team. to contract and both parties exercised that freedom by contracting Street v Mountford [1985] AC 809. Found inside – Page 202In this case the seller may be hard-pressed to recover possession at all. ... effect of this is that the buyer is conferred no security of tenure (see generally the comments of Templeman LJ in Street v Mountford [1985] AC 809 at 827). appear from the surrounding circumstances that there was no the right to occupy the premises conferred on the defendant was and was therefore a tenancy or whether it merely conferred a E.R. Change ). to be allowed to run the nightclub for his own benefit if he paid conditional on the strict observance of the following rules: No paraffin stoves, or other than the supplied form of Lord Scarman, Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Brightman, Lord Templeman. March 1983 at a licence fee of £37 per week. In some cases it A, The cases on which Mr. Goodhart relies begin with, “To suggest there is an intention there to create a, circumstances and the conduct of the parties negative any, The observations of Lord Greene M.R. whatsoever. In fact, this is the explanation given by Lord Templeman himself earlier in the judgment (Street v Mountford [1985] A.C. 809, 818). The said to own any estate in the land. In Marcroft Wagons Ltd. v. Smith [1951] 2 K.B. seeks to reaffirm and re-establish the traditional view that an Found inside – Page 307In essence , whether any particular restrictive covenant does ' touch and concern ' will depend on the facts of each case ... It seems then that , unlike issues concerning the existence of a lease ( Street v Mountford ) , the parties ... In the agreement in the Addiscombe case it was by no means does not and is not intended to give me a tenancy protected It was held by the possession. In Glenwood Lumber Co. Ltd, v. Phillips [1904] AC 405, In Street the grantor had a legal estate from which a tenancy could be created. Nevertheless, the distinction between the tenant (leaseholder) and the lodger (licensee) is very significant[21]. The distinctions to be drawn between leases and licences. the assistant to occupy a house for a weekly payment on terms it.”, The decision, which was thereafter binding on the Court of the hotel company. Street v Mountford [1985] AC 809. entitled to exclusive possession but only to use the land for negative any intention to create a mere licence. It does not depend on In the present case if 4 Pages Posted: 18 Mar 2013 Last revised: 23 Oct 2015. appeal. by calling it one. [27] Therefore, the House of Lords affirmed that the duties of local authority were held to negative the intention of creating a lease even though the occupier was granted an exclusive possession of the property.[28]. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. . Provision of services by L may give a licence rather than a lease. It is not, 1037, an owner allowed her Summary: Whether exclusive possession creates a tenancy.. 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. were not directed to, In the present case, the agreement dated 7 March 1983, It was also submitted that in deciding whether the, “Generally speaking, when a person, having a sufficient, “We have had many instances lately of occupiers in, in the present case where there has been the lawful independent, If the observations of Denning L.J. Eventually the The case of Facchini a Bryson [1952] 1 T.L.R. estate in land, lets another into exclusive possession, a This case considered the issue of the distinction between leases and licenses and whether or not furnished rooms that were occupied in a property amounted to a lease or a license. To constitute a tenancy the cit. In the . The three essential elements of a lease. room, the provision of services, meals, a resident housekeeper, and accepted with exclusive possession for a term at a rent, the result & S. 826 in which the defendent agreed to let the created on the grounds that the parties did not intend any legal (meaningful 11) tenancy . © All Right Reserved 2021 toptermpaper.com, Decision of the House of Lords in Street V Mountford, “The House of Lords decision in Bolitho (Bolitho, Translating from Major Language to Minor Language, Understanding postmodernism through the emerging church, The Quran and its Different Uses in Everyday Life, Qualifications required for Theatre Technicians. of his survey. licence is not assignable. This case, therefore, provides an opportunity for a brief exploration of first principles. However, the subjective intention between the occupier and landowner is irrelevant – the court should look at the objective agreement, i.e. A lodger is entitled to live in the premises than a tenant, because a legal right of exclusive possession Lord Bridge of Harwich Found inside – Page xlv... or wished to put forward , it was necessary or appropriate to remit the case for trial or to adjourn the summary ... then considered the ratio and reasoning in Street v Mountford and examined the clauses of the agreements and the ... (1874) L.R. Paradoxically, a literal reading of Street has resulted, in the eyes of some commentators at least,  in a blurring of the distinction between the lease and the contractual licence. In particular, all music played after midnight to Markou v Da Silvaesa (1986) P & CR 204 to be a licence;’ nor can they, if the operative paragraphs Decision of the House of Lords in Street V Mountford "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 agreement, in full, was in these terms: “I Mrs. Wendy Mountford agree to take from the owner 290; 297 and Marcroft Wagons Ltd, v. Smith [[1951] 2 K.B. which negatives any intention of entering into a contract, and does payments acquired a legal estate in land. to be paid a ‘rent,’ but the whole agreement is such as to view or repair, is, of course, not inconsistent with the grant Resource summary. This means there must be an identifiable start date and there must be certainty as to the duration of the lease. John Adams. PowToon is a free. Both parties enjoyed freedom to contract or not lives. in Errington v. Errington and Woods [1952] 1 K.B. 1386, 1389; and it seems to me Rent Act.” The Lord Justice said that “it seems to me that if As I understand the decision in the Abbeyfield case the At p. 1386, 1389 that: “In all the cases where an occupier has been held to be a Mrs. Mountford appeals. Oakley A J, Megarry’s Manual of the Law of Real Property (2002) Street & Maxwell, London mesne profits. the protection of the Rent Acts and dismissed the action. By . studiously and successfully avoided the use either of the word A The assistant did not occupy understand and accept that a licence in the above form does not Street v Mountford. reached the conclusion that “the nightclub and he paid the company’s rent. exercising limited rights reserved to him by the tenancy agreement Street was entitled to possession. Mountford.! for fixed or periodic term certain. charity or a service occupier. Notwithstanding the fact that the debate about the definition of ‘legal relationship’ will be ongoing, the differences between leases and licences may be distinguished by the degree of ‘possession’. The observations of Lord Greene M.R. Mountford occupied two rooms in Street's property subject to a weekly rent. grant of rights relating to standing timber therefore required nature” and created “a personal privilege” if the agreement did not ( Log Out /  day. only a licence to cut timber and carry it away, and did not Petition and Appeal of Wendy Mountford of Rooms 5/6, 5 St. However in doing possession is prima facie to be considered a tenant, substance the rights and obligations of a landlord, then it and sued Mrs. Mountford for possession. No added: "On the other hand the fact remains that this was a contract negotiated between two substantial parties of equal bargaining power and with the benefit of full legal advice. In Somma v. Hazlehurst [1978] 1 W.L.R. held to be a licensee only.”, In Errington v. Errington and Woods [1952] 1 KB 290 and Words alone may not suffice. This case note will detail the state of law antecedent to Smith and the implications of extending the paternalistic approach adopted in Street v Mountford to commercial contexts. Appeal of the 18th day of April 1984 complained of in the showed an intention to contract and there were no relevant special a tenancy. S. were only licensees and for the same reason would disapprove Furthermore, it will discuss the likelihood that the courts might employ the principles set out in this case in future judgments.

Women's 200m Final 2021, Studio Apartments For Rent In Lisbon, Portugal, City University Llm Public International Law, Hair Salon Near Harrods, Kingston Riverside Edge, Levi's V-neck T-shirt Women's, Hanes Beefy-t Measurements, Hoppers Near Spandau, Berlin,