100%(1)1 out of 1 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 20 - 22 out of 47 pages.
that the occupier was a lodger and was therefore a licensee not a tenant.In Shell-Mex & BP Ltd v Manchester Garages Ltd  1 All ER 841, 1 WLR 612the Court of Appeal, after carefully examining an agreement whereby thedefendant was allowed to use a petrol company’s filling station for the purposes ofselling petrol, came to the conclusion that the agreement did not grant exclusivepossession to the defendant, who was therefore a licensee. Lord Denning MR inconsidering whether the transaction was a licence or a tenancy said ( 1 AllER 841 at 843,  1 WLR 612 at 615):‘Broadly speaking, we have to see whether it is a personal privilege given to aperson, in which case it is a licence, or whether it grants an interest in land, in whichcase it is a tenancy. At one time it used to be thought that exclusive possession wasa decisive factor. But that is not so. It depends on broader considerationsaltogether. Primarily on whether it is personal in its nature or not: see Errington vErrington and Woods.’In my opinion the agreement was only ‘personal in its nature’ and created ‘a personalprivilege’ if the agreement did not confer the right to exclusive possession of thefilling station. No other test for distinguishing between a contractual tenancy and acontractual licence appears to be understandable or workable.Heslop v Burns  3 All ER 406,  1 WLR 1241was another case inwhich the owner of a cottage allowed a family to live in the cottage rent free and itwas held that no tenancy at will had been created on the grounds that the parties did82
not intend any legal relationship. Scarman LJ cited with approval the statement byDenning LJ in Facchini v Bryson  1 TLR 1386 at 1389:‘In all the cases where an occupier has been held to be a licensee there has beensomething in the circumstances, such as a family arrangement, an act of friendshipor generosity, or such like, to negative any intention to create a tenancy.(See 3 All ER 406 at 415,  1 WLR 1241 at 1252.)In Marchant v Charters  3 All ER 918,  1 WLR 1181a bed-sittingroom was occupied on terms that the landlord cleaned the rooms daily and providedclean linen each week. It was held by the Court of Appeal that the occupier was alicensee and not a tenant. The decision in the case is sustainable on the groundsthat the occupier was a lodger and did not enjoy exclusive possession. But LordDenning MR said ( 3 All ER 918 at 922,  1 WLR 1181 at 1185):‘What is the test to see whether the occupier of one room in a house is a tenant or alicensee? It does not depend on whether he or she has exclusive possession or not.It does not depend on whether the room is furnished or not. It does not depend onwhether the occupation is permanent or temporary. It does not depend on the labelwhich the parties put on it. All these are factors which may influence the decisionbut none of them is conclusive. All the circumstances have to be worked out.