Side By Side Jasmin is entitled to the registered freehold of two neighbouring shops in New Farm. One of the shops is under a four year registered lease to Hank who runs a cat café with chairs (milk crates) for his customers on the footpath and scratching poles for his cats to climb and play with. The other shop is leased under a five year registered lease to Joseph who runs "Free Space" - a 6m x 10m area which he allows to be booked for a variety of purposes including Yoga classes, corporate meetings and art exhibitions. Joseph charges each person for the time they use the space. One Saturday morning, Hank is busily serving his customers organic imported fair trade Colombian coffee when he hears loud music emanating out of Free Space ("Duff Duff Duff"). The noise continues for a few minutes then stops abruptly. After another thirty minutes its starts again, but only for a few minutes. His customers are visibly concerned and Hank can see that his cats are afraid too. The following weekend it happens again. Hank has had enough. He unties his vintage apron and marches next door. He confronts a man named Charlie who is running an exhibition called "It's all in the Mind" which plays music alongside artwork. The idea is that customers come in, view the artwork, and then click a button, which plays related music to the art. In his defence, Charlie says he has "rented" the space from Joseph for six weeks. Under the terms of the booking (called a "LICENCE TO Commented [EH1]: You are told in the question that the land is registered and is freehold. Jasmin holds indefeasible title. The examiner is not making an issue out of this. Commented [EH2]: This wording implies that the examiner wants to get the issue out of the way about whether there is a valid lease or not. In other words, this is not going to be a question about the formalities of a lease (requirements for writing under the PLA and registration under the LTA) Commented [EH3]: Again you are told the nature of the lease. It complies with the formalities of the PLA and LTA. Commented [EH4]: Because there is a variety of purposes here, you could assume that the question might have something to do with what is appropriate use of the premises. Commented [EH5]: This implies that it will be a question focussing on the rights of tenants to use the premises. You are being asked to consider who has what obligations and what their legal avenues are to enforce them. Commented [EH6]: This information is provided to allow you to discuss the extent of a possible breach. Commented [EH7]: Here you can see evidence of the 'impact' that the use of the neighbouring premises is having on the business. Commented [EH8]: This goes to the extent of impact. Commented [EH9]: Here is a new person added to the scenario, you need to consider what