Whatever question you'll ultimately be asked will revolve around leases - is it a lease or a licence, have the formalities of creation been complied with, is it legal or equitable, etc? If a lease, how can it be terminated? It's possible you've received no replies because the facts in the scenario cover much of the whole gambit of leases, so short of re-writing your lecture notes it's difficult to address all of the points. Every line in the facts is pointing you towards an arguable issue. I'd concentrate, with time short before an exam, on the difference between a lease and a licence. Why would the landlord argue for a licence and the tenant for a lease? What is a sham? Exclusive possession. Terms which, although not acted upon, were in the genuine contemplation of the parties. What turns Edward from a tenant into a lodger? If a lease how can it be terminated or what are the effects of sale of the property - has the lease been created in such a way as to survive that? I'd want to have, as a very minimum suggestion, Street v Mountford, Snook v London&West Riding Investments, Aslan v Murphy, Mikeover v Brady, Markou v Da Silvaesa, Antoniades v Villiers, Gray v Brown, under my belt. That's just looking at the main issue of lease/licence.