A flat, whose layout was only suitable for two people who were close, was let to D and X. P got them to sign separate agreements but on identical terms, purporting to be licences and requiring them to share possession with others who may be granted licences. X moved out and D continued only to pay his half of the rent. P purported to determine the licence and sued for possession. CA held that this was not a tenancy. There are four unities required for joint tenancy: Unity of time, of possession, of title and of interest. Here, the last unity was missing since the rent was payable in separate halves, not jointly.
Slade LJ: He distinguishes this case from Antoniades, because in that case there was a clause (right to give more licences to others over the property) that was near practically impossible so that it was not seriously intended. Here, all the clauses leading to a licence rather than lease were seriously intended. Also lack of joint liability for the rent means no joint tenancy. This was established in Stribling. This rendered the relationship between the occupiers independent and not interdependent.