Occupancy in UK Law

The question in every such case must be one of fact, viz., whose position in relation to occupation is paramount, and whose position in relation to occupation is subordinate; but, in my opinion, the question must be considered and answered in regard to the position and rights of the parties in the premises in question, and in regard to the purpose of the occupation of those premises.

A familiar instance of this competing occupancy is the case of the lodger. In view of the frequently fleeting nature of the occupancy of a lodger, the convenience of this view, indeed the necessity for it, is obvious; but it purports to be based upon the paramountcy of the landlord's occupation, arising from his control of the front door and his general control over and right of access to the lodgers' rooms for the proper conduct of the lodging house.

If this is right, the pieces of the jigsaw fit together reasonably well. A purchaser or mortgagee inspects and enquires before completion, in the established fashion. He then completes the transaction, taking an executed transfer or mortgage. Whether or not an overriding interest under paragraph (g) subsists so far as his freehold or mortgage is concerned falls to be determined at that moment.

It is evident, therefore, that there will not be occupation in the context of rating unless some use is made of the hereditament in the course of the relevant year. "Use" is not a word of precise meaning, but in general it conveys the idea of enjoyment derived by the user from the corpus of the object enjoyed.

The purpose, in each system, is the same, namely, to safeguard the rights of persons in occupation, but the method used differs. In the case of unregistered land, the purchaser's obligation depends upon what he has notice of—notice actual or constructive. In the case of registered land, it is the fact of occupation that matters. If there is actual occupation, and the occupier has rights, the purchaser takes subject to them.

Translating this general principle into its particular application to dangerous premises, it becomes simply this: wherever a person has a sufficient degree of control over premises that he ought to realise that any failure on his part to use care may result in injury to a person coming lawfully there, then he is an "occupier" and the person coming lawfully there is his "visitor": and the "occupier" is under a duty to his "visitor" to use reasonable care.

On the facts of this case it is, in my judgment, abundantly clear that the parties did not enter into any arrangement, far less any arrangement intended to create a legal relationship, as to the terms on which the defendants should occupy the property. There was no contract, no arrangement, no statement by the deceased.