[2024] UKUT 264 (LC)

Because of our finding that Members are in occupation of the whole of the Appeal Premises, the issue of which of two occupiers is in paramount occupation does not arise. Members do not occupy their individual Rooms in two different capacities (as individuals and as members of the larger group). Their occupancy is of each and every part. But in case we are wrong in that finding we will deal additionally but briefly with the question of paramount occupancy.

If it is appropriate to regard individual Members as each being in occupation of their own Rooms while Chambers collectively occupies the whole of the Appeal Premises we would have no difficulty in treating the arrangement as analogous to that of a landlord licensing rooms in a lodging house to individual lodgers, or a supermarket operator permitting occupation by a bank of an ATM site. Paramount control remains vested in Chambers which controls the building as a whole, allocates Rooms, services them, and retains the power to adopt policies or make individual decisions requiring that they be shared or, ultimately, vacated. Individual Members are entitled by virtue of their membership of Chambers and subscription to the Constitution to have access to a Room, but they do so subject to the right of Chambers acting through its Chambers’ Meetings or through the Management Committee to adopt policies which regulate their occupation.

There is no doubt that Chambers as a whole remains in occupation of the whole of the Appeal Premises and has not parted with possession. First and foremost this is achieved through the presence of the individual Members, but it is reflected also in the presence of Chambers’ staff.

The fact that individual Members are the only Members who make use of a particular Room is not inconsistent with this assessment. In that respect they are no different from the lodger allocated a separate room or the bank which exercises a very high degree of control over the enclosed space which houses its ATM. Occupation of the Room by an individual Member advances the purpose for which Chambers as a whole occupies the Appeal Premises, namely, to enable each Member of Chambers to carry on their individual practices from the same premises and under their collective identity, and to benefit from the joint provision of support, administrative services and the sharing of expenses. By allocating each Member a separate Room and leaving them there relatively undisturbed Chambers facilitates each individual’s practice and the successful operation of Chambers as a whole. Although they do not share the profits of their separate businesses, Members benefit financially from sharing the Appeal Premises by reducing their individual expenses, and they benefit reputationally by their association with each other and their brand which helps to attract work, especially for those in the early years of practice.

Were it necessary to do so, which we consider it is not, we would determine that Chambers remains in paramount occupation of the whole of the Appeal Premises.