Clore v Theatrical Properties Ltd [1936] 3 All ER 483

Facts

  • The dispute arose from an agreement between Clore and Theatrical Properties Ltd regarding the use of a theatre.
  • Clore granted Theatrical Properties Ltd rights to use the theatre for a specified period.
  • The agreement was labelled a licence, but Clore contended it was in substance a lease, conferring a proprietary interest.
  • Theatrical Properties Ltd argued the arrangement was merely a revocable licence and not a lease.
  • The court examined factors including the duration of the arrangement, the degree of control Clore retained, and the rights conferred, focusing on whether exclusive possession of the theatre was granted.

Issues

  1. Whether the agreement between Clore and Theatrical Properties Ltd created a lease (proprietary interest) or a licence (personal right).
  2. Whether the substance or the label of the agreement should determine its legal character.
  3. Whether exclusive possession had been given, indicating a lease rather than a licence.

Decision

  • The Court of Appeal held the arrangement constituted a licence, not a lease.
  • Clore retained significant control over the theatre, including entry and alterations.
  • Theatrical Properties Ltd did not have exclusive possession, which is fundamental to a lease.
  • The legal character of the agreement was determined by its substance and the parties’ intentions, not by the label used.

Legal Principles

  • The distinction between a lease and a licence depends on the substance of the arrangement and the intentions of the parties, not the terms used.
  • A lease confers a proprietary interest and exclusive possession, whereas a licence is a personal, revocable right without exclusive possession.
  • Courts examine practical realities, including control retained by the licensor, duration, and possession, rather than simply relying on the labels chosen by the parties.
  • The decision prevents parties from evading legal lease obligations by labeling an arrangement as a licence.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal confirmed that the agreement between Clore and Theatrical Properties Ltd was a licence rather than a lease, emphasizing that legal character is determined by substance and factual circumstances, not by how parties describe their arrangement. The decision remains significant in clarifying the rights conferred by licences versus leases in property law.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal