Introduction
A tenancy at will happens when someone occupies land with the owner’s permission, without a formal lease or set duration. This short-term setup lasts only while both parties agree. Important points include the owner giving exclusive possession and both sides accepting that either can end the arrangement at any time. Unlike leases, no fixed term is needed. The case of Long v Tower Hamlets LBC [1996] 2 All ER 683 explains how courts recognize such tenancies and the facts they consider.
Exclusive Possession: Main Rule
Exclusive possession lets the occupier manage the property and keep others out, including the owner. The owner must clearly give this right through words or behavior. In Long, the court checked the occupier’s conditions to see if real exclusive possession was present. Simple allowance to stay (e.g., staying with a family member) is not enough. The court highlighted the importance of reviewing the real situation of occupation.
Parties’ Aims: Deciding Factor
Courts decide if a tenancy at will exists by fairly judging the parties’ intentions, based on their words and actions. Did the owner plan to give exclusive possession, and did the occupier agree to those terms? In Long v Tower Hamlets LBC, the court looked at exchanges between the parties. A written deal is not needed if behavior shows the necessary intent.
Rent’s Place in Tenancy at Will
Regular rent is typical in leases but not required here. Occasional or small payments do not block a tenancy at will if other factors are present. In Long, the court decided formal rent is not essential, separating this setup from periodic tenancies. This shows that exclusive possession and intent matter most.
Ending a Tenancy at Will
Either side can stop this tenancy at any time with fair notice. The notice length depends on the situation. The death of either party ends it at once. Long v Tower Hamlets LBC shows the arrangement’s uncertainty and how easily it can end, stressing that both sides must know its terms.
Comparing Tenancy at Will, Licenses, and Leases
A tenancy at will is not the same as licenses (which do not have exclusive possession) or leases (which have set terms). Long v Tower Hamlets LBC makes these differences clear, giving a way to weigh each type. Cases like Street v Mountford [1985] UKHL 4 further separate exclusive possession from basic occupancy rights.
Conclusion
Long v Tower Hamlets LBC sets out main rules for spotting a tenancy at will, focusing on exclusive possession and shared intent. Rent is not compulsory, though its lack does not rule out such a tenancy. The case distinguishes this setup from licenses and leases, helping the study of occupancy rights. By using tests from Long and Street v Mountford, courts can judge occupation agreements correctly. Each case needs full checking against legal rules to decide the parties’ rights and duties.
