Many thanks to Julian and Andrew for correctly identifying the case I had in mind, and that the decision to which I had referred was reversed on appeal.
Whilst it is not the Lloyds Private Banking case that supports the point I was making, I recall a case in which property was given absolutely to the testator’s children with a wish/request that they allow the testator’s widow rent-free occupation. The court concluded that no interest in possession was created and that it was for the absolute beneficiaries - the children - to decide if they might grant the widow a licence to occupy – she had no right of occupation under the will.
Although I wondered if the Special Commissioners’ decision in Judge (personal representatives of Walden) v. IRC  might include reference to the case in question, having read the judgment I note Dr Brice makes no reference to it. His observations, though, could be taken to support such a view.
I currently do not have access to Dymond’s Capital Taxes, but believe that, if my recollection is correct, Dymond’s will reference the situation and case in question.