Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only.

National Car Parks Ltd v Trinity Development Co (Banbury) Ltd

333 words (1 pages) Case Summary

17th Jun 2019 Case Summary Reference this In-house law team

Jurisdiction / Tag(s): UK Law

National Car Parks Ltd v Trinity Development Co (Banbury) Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1686

Landlord and tenant; whether agreement in relation to a car park was a lease or license


National Car Parks (NCP) entered an agreement with Trinity Development Co (TDC) under which they agreed to manage a car park. The agreement was stated to be a license and TDC had 40 spaces reserved for their employees free of charge. TDC served notice to end the agreement, and NCP sought a declaration that the agreement amounted to a lease in substance and effect.


NCP argued the agreement as a matter of construction amounted to a lease, and they were entitled to the statutory protections of Part II Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. NCP had the right to enter and occupy the premises, manage the car park, the right to control the premises and responsibility for the running of the car park. They claimed this amounted to their holding exclusive possession. TDC contended there was no ambiguity in the agreement and it was labelled correctly as a license. There were several clauses which pointed against exclusive possession. There was no reservation of a right of re-entry and nor was there any covenant for quiet enjoyment. TDC were expressly stated to remain in possession throughout, and the reservation of 40 parking spaces also pointed against exclusive possession.


The agreement was held to be a license. Although the labelling of the agreement was not conclusive, it did carry weight, and there was nothing in the agreement which suggested it was a sham to avoid conferring statutory rights. It was significant that the agreement commenced with the imposition of numerous obligations on NCP, rather than conferring a right of occupation. It was also significant that there was no covenant of quiet enjoyment, which is a usual characteristic of a tenancy.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

Related Content

Jurisdictions / Tags

Content relating to: "UK Law"

UK law covers the laws and legislation of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Essays, case summaries, problem questions and dissertations here are relevant to law students from the United Kingdom and Great Britain, as well as students wishing to learn more about the UK legal system from overseas.

Related Articles