The Court held that an informal oral arrangement between two dental practitioners for one to occupy rooms within the other's leased premises was a contractual licence, not a lease or agreement for lease. Critical to this finding was the absence of certainty as to the commencement date and duration of the arrangement, which was fatal to any characterisation as a lease. The Court further held that the occupier had only factual (de facto) possession rather than a legal right to exclusive possession, given that the surgery room had no door, the consulting room was never locked, and the head tenant regularly entered to perform caretaker-type functions without the occupier's knowledge or consent. The Court declined to imply terms as to commencement and duration under the BP Refinery test, finding this would amount to the Court 'making up' the bargain, and held that the parties' use of labels such as 'lease' and 'rent' was not determinative of the legal character of the arrangement.
The full text is available to signed-in members.