Case No. UKUT-334-(LC)-UTLC-Case-Numbers:-LC-2022-88

19.Section 1 of the 1960 Act makes provision for site licensing, as we have seen, and forbids an “occupier of land” to cause or permit it to be used as a caravan site unless he holds a licence (paragraph 5 above). Section 1(3) defines an “occupier” as follows:“(3) In this Part of this Act the expression “occupier” means, in relation to any land, the person who, by virtue of an estate or interest therein held by him, is entitled to possession thereof or would be so entitled but for the rights of any other person under any licence granted in respect of the land.”20.The subsection goes on to make an exception for the holder of a tenancy of not more than 400 square yards of land.21.Ms Wigley KC relied upon the words “by virtue of an estate of interest therein”; a person without a freehold or leasehold estate is not within the definition of “occupier”.22.The appellant is the freeholder of the site and has held the licence since 2003. But the appellant now says that it is not the occupier of the site. Mr Morgan argued that “occupier” in section 1(1) means “the person or entity who actually and de facto occupies the land and operates it as a caravan park”, which in this case is Tallington Lakes Leisure Park Limited. He said that this is the longstanding and universally applied meaning of the term. 23.He relies upon section 10(4) of the 1960 Act:“(4) Where any person becomes, by operation of law, entitled to an estate or interest in land in respect of which a site licence is in force and is, by virtue of his holding that estate or interest, the occupier of the land within the meaning of this Part of this Act he shall, for the purposes of this Part of this Act, be treated as having become the holder of the licence on the day on which he became the occupier of the land, and the local authority in whose area the land is situated shall, if an application in that behalf is made to them, endorse his name and the said date on the licence.”24.The appellant argued that because the statute deals expressly with an occupier by operation of law, it must be the case that some occupiers are occupiers for a different reason, for example a management agreement.25.Mr Morgan has misunderstood section 10, which is about transfers of licences. Section 10 is about how a licence can be transferred when the licence holder ceases to be the occupier of the land, and there are two possibilities. First, section 10(1) is relevant where the occupier of land changes because of some deliberate act, for example a sale, and it enables a licence holder who ceases to be the occupier of land to transfer it to the person who has become the occupier. Second, section 10(4) deals with the situation where the occupier changes not because of a deliberate act but by operation of law, for example when the occupier dies. Section 10 does not say anything about who can hold a site licence.26.Mr Morgan also referred to the wording of application forms for licences, such as the respondent’s own. The form asks if the applicant is an individual or a business, and Mr Morgan argued that if the applicant had to be a freeholder or leaseholder the form would ask if it was a freeholder or leaseholder. I do not agree; the local authority has regulatory reasons for asking about the nature of the proposed licence holder, but that does not change the statutory requirement. The form asks the applicant to state its “interest in land (give particulars of lease or tenancy, if any)”, which Mr Morgan said implies that the applicant may have no interest in the land. Again this does not assist, because the point of the “if any” is that the applicant may be the freeholder. 27.As Ms Wigley KC pointed out, it is notable that section 12(2) of the 1960 Act grants the occupier under section 1(3) the right, as against any person claiming under a licence or under a tenancy excluded by section 1(3) (see paragraph 20 above), to enter on the land and do anything reasonably required for the purpose of complying with any conditions; it follows that a licensee is not the occupier even if its licence would enable it to exclude the freeholder or leaseholder but for section 12(2).28.The wording of section 1(3) of the 1960 Act is clear and unambiguous; the occupier has to occupy the land “by virtue of an estate or interest therein”, meaning a legal or equitable estate or interest; the wording is not broad enough to encompass a licensee or the manager under a management contract.29.Accordingly the appeal fails on ground 1; the occupier and the correct licence holder is the appellant as the freeholder of the site.