At a theoretical level, no distinction should be drawn between residential and commercial premises when it comes to deciding whether a paying occupier enjoys a lease or a mere licence. The question in either case is whether it was intended that he should enjoy exclusive possession.
That said, there are certain arrangements affecting commercial properties (petrol stations affording the best known example) that allow the owner to say (without undue artificiality) that there was no such intention because his purpose in inviting the occupier aboard was to carry on a business that was the business of the owner. An instructive borderline case, which went in favour of the owner, can be found in National Car Parks Ltd v Trinity Development Co (Banbury) Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1686; [2001] PLSCS 222.
Although the court did not say so in so many words, the scales were clearly tipped by certain clauses in the agreement that had a distinct odour of motor fuel.
At a theoretical level, no distinction should be drawn between residential and commercial premises when it comes to deciding whether a paying occupier enjoys a lease or a mere licence. The question in either case is whether it was intended that he should enjoy exclusive possession.
That said, there are certain arrangements affecting commercial properties (petrol stations affording the best known example) that allow the owner to say (without undue artificiality) that there was no such intention because his purpose in inviting the occupier aboard was to carry on a business that was the business of the owner. An instructive borderline case, which went in favour of the owner, can be found in National Car Parks Ltd v Trinity Development Co (Banbury) Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1686; [2001] PLSCS 222.
Although the court did not say so in so many words, the scales were clearly tipped by certain clauses in the agreement that had a distinct odour of motor fuel.
