I don't really remember properly, but isn't it more of a tenancy at will?
Wasn't she granted a possessory right – exclusive possession therefore more than a licence, but it couldn't have been a lease since it wasn't definite. The arrangement was based on generosity rather than an intention to create legal relations and therefore cannot have been an ordinary lease.
Wasn't there something (forgive me, I'm doing this from memory and it isnt a v good one!) about how the HL felt there was an intention to create legal relations as they were going to sell it to her eventually so it didn’t sit well in the categories: more than a licence, but not a lease. Somewhere between the two.
So basically, she had a licence with exclusive possession and thus a tenancy at will.
That make any sense to anyone or should I be in bed?!
And yeah I think it was Templeman. Something about how you can call a fork a spade, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a fork. Or maybe it was the other way around!