Long v Tower Hamlets LBC [1996] 2 All ER 683

Facts

• The case concerned the nature of a tenancy at will, where an occupier possesses land with the owner's permission, without a formal lease or fixed duration.
• The arrangement in question granted the occupier exclusive possession, with both parties recognizing that the tenancy could be terminated by either at any time.
• The court considered whether the occupier had genuine exclusive possession based on the factual circumstances of occupation.
• There was no formal written agreement, but the parties’ conduct and exchanges were evaluated to determine intent.
• The payment of rent was either informal or absent, and the court analyzed whether rent was necessary for a tenancy at will.
• The arrangement could be ended at any time by either party, and would terminate immediately upon the death of either.

Issues

1. Whether exclusive possession was established, sufficient to create a tenancy at will.
2. Whether the parties’ conduct demonstrated mutual intent to enter a tenancy at will.
3. Whether the payment of rent is necessary for the existence of a tenancy at will.
4. How a tenancy at will differs from licenses and leases.
5. On what basis such tenancies may be terminated.

Decision

• The court held that a tenancy at will may be created where the occupier is granted exclusive possession by the owner, provided that such possession is intended by both parties.
• The court found that a formal written agreement is not required; the intent may be established through the parties’ conduct and exchanges.
• It was determined that payment of rent is not a requisite feature of a tenancy at will.
• The court distinguished tenancies at will from licenses (which lack exclusive possession) and leases (which require set terms and generally regular rent).
• The arrangement is terminable at any time by either party, and the tenancy ends automatically upon death of either party.

Legal Principles

• Exclusive possession is central to creating a tenancy at will; mere permission to occupy does not suffice.
• The mutual intention of the parties, evidenced by words or conduct, is critical in determining the existence of a tenancy at will.
• Payment of rent is not required to establish a tenancy at will; its absence does not defeat such a tenancy if other criteria are met.
• A tenancy at will is a distinct legal arrangement, differing from a licence (by virtue of exclusive possession) and from a lease (by lacking fixed term and regular rent).
• Tenancies at will are inherently precarious and can be terminated at any time by either party, including by death.

Conclusion

Long v Tower Hamlets LBC [1996] 2 All ER 683 clarifies that a tenancy at will arises when exclusive possession and mutual intent are present, regardless of rent or written agreement, and distinguishes this arrangement from licenses and leases by its terminable and informal nature.