Facts: The council gave the London and Quadrant Housing Trust (LQHT) a licence to use land to accomodate the homeless. LQHT entered an agreement with Bruton to pay weekly rent for a flat and there was a provision that LHQT had access to the property at limited times and that it was merely a licence. Later, Bruton claimed he was a tenant and LQHT had an obligation to repair the flat under statutory law (if it was a licence LQHT would not have this obligation). LQHT argued, despite the existence of exclusive possession, there were special circumstances which should allow the court to construe the agreement as a licence.

Held: The House of Lords held the agreement did create a tenance and LQHT was therefore under an obligation to repair. Giving the leading judgment, Lord Hoffmann held it did not matter that the landlord did not have a property right in its title. Exclusive possession is the essence of a lease, and irrelevant that the agreement purported to be a licence

⇒ However, this cases has been criticised as it appears to invent a “non-proprietary” lease! In other words, LQHT seems to have been able to give a lease to someone despite having no proprietary interest in the property → it seems to undermine the principle of nemo dat non quod habet (‘no one gives what he does not have’)

Facts: The claimants (Clear Channel) erected and mainted advertising displays. The defendant (Manchester City Council) entered an agreement (not formal) allowing the claimant to erect and maintain 13 large advertising displays at various locations. The claimant claimed to have a business tenancy whilst the defendant contended that the claimant had a licence.

⇒ The agreement listed the sites, said the sites could only be used for advertising, and said the claimant had to bear all costs and maintain sites. The defendant submitted the agreement only referred to large undefined areas of land owned by them so it is impossible to specify where they would have 'exclusive possession'

Held: The Court of Appeal agreed with the defendant (i.e. they held that the claimant had a licence), upholding Lord Templeman's view in Street v Mountford that the claimant would need exclusive possession to have a lease

Facts: A man was watching a film at the cinema. They tried to evict him but he said that he had a licence. Nevertheless, they threw him out.

Held: The court held that the man had a licence at the time to be in the cinema so got compensation

Facts: Mr Street, by an agreement which stated that it was a licence, granted Mrs Mountford the right to occupy rooms in a property. The question for the court was whether the agreement wasn, as expressed in the agreement, a licence, or whether it was in fact a lease. The terms of the agreement included that Mr Street could enter the rooms at any time to inspect, to read the meter, to carry out maintenance and install or replace furniture or for any other reasonable purpose. No on other than Mrs Mountford could occupy or sleep in the room without permission. No children or pets were allowed. The 'licence' could also be terminated by 14 days written notice. The agreement also stated the that the licence did not and was not intended to give a tenancy and conferred no protection from the Rent Acts.

Held: It was held to be a LEASE, not a licence.

⇒ It was said whether or not there was a lease or licence was not a matter of what the parties labelled their agreement, but the actual effect of it: "the manufacture of a five-pronged implement for manual digging results in a fork, even if the manufacturer, unfamiliar with the English language insists that he intended to make a spade"

⇒ Lord Templeman argued the defining feature of a lease is exclusive possession, but this view has been criticised e.g. by Denning LJ in Errington v Errington

⇒ Lord Templeman also pointed out exceptional cases where the prima facie intention is not to create a lease, despite the fact the occupier has exclusive possession:

• Where the parties intended no legal relation at all
• Where the person had no power to grant a tenancy
• Where there is a master and servant service occupation

⇒ Also see the cases of Clear Channel v Manchester CC and Bruton v LQHT for recent applications of this case

Facts: The owners of a theatre licenced it for 6 months to Millenium Productions, but later game them one month's notice to leave despite the fact that Millenium Productions had just contracted with a production company to put on a play at the theatre for 6 months

Held: The court held a licence can be revoked on giving reasonable notice, so the revocation of the licence here was valid