Notesale: Turn your study into money

Document Preview

Extracts from the notes are below, to see the PDF you'll receive please use the links above

---

Real Property Law

Licences & Estoppel

What is a Licence?
• a licence is a permission given by the licensor (occupant/landowner) to another person
(licensee) to enter upon the land for some specific purpose
• these are acts that might otherwise amount to trespass
• licences have come to be regarded as proprietary interests in land

Bare Licences
• a licence that is granted for reasons other than for valuable consideration 
• its the mere permission to enter upon the licensor’s land (i
...
an invite to dinner)
• these licences may be implied 
• i
...
mailman has an implied licence to enter premises to deliver mail
• a commercial business may be said to have implied licences to people who
enter in good faith in order to conduct business 
• they may be withdrawn at any time by the licensor without notice but the licensee must
be given reasonable time to leave (depends on circumstances) 

Licence Coupled with an Interest
• profit a prendre (right to take)
• a licence to enter the land but additionally to take something from the land as well (i
...

bird bush in Jamaica)
• it is not effective at law unless the profit has been formally granted by deed
• it continues as long as the interest exists, may last indefinitely even
• it is a common law right so being a legal right, it is irrevocable and binding against third
parties (it is a right in rem)

Contractual Licences
• a licence granted for valuable consideration 
• may be short-term:
• a person buys a ticket for a movie or for a car park
KMB

1 of 5

Real Property Law

Licences & Estoppel

• Wood v Leadbitter  [1843-60] ALL ER Rep 190: Wood bought a ticket to view

horse-racing and was forcibly ejected from the racecourse in breach of the
contract, held that the licensor Leadbitter was entitled to revoke Wood’s licence
at any time and once he did Wood became a trespasser who could be lawfully
ejected with reasonable force, Wood’s argument that he had an irrevocable
licence to enter and remain in the racecourse enclosure during the whole
period of the race was rejected, Wood could not sue Leadbitter for assault and
his only remedy was for damages for breach of contract
• may be medium-term: annual gym membership
• may be long-term: an apartment renter
• revocable at any time by the licensor and not binding on third parties
• King v David Allen & Sons (Billposting) Ltd [1916] 2 AC 54: licensor gave to the
licensee the exclusive permission to affix advertisements to the walls of a
cinema, licensor granted a lease of the cinema to a third party without any
mention of the licence, lessee refused to allow the licensee to continue affixing
the advertisements and the licensee sued the licensor for breach of contract,
licensor would be liable for damages for breach if the lease had the effect of
depriving the licensee of his right to affix the advertisements - if the licence were
not binding on the lessee, House of Lords held that the licence was not binding
and therefore the action for damages succeeded
• case shows that third parties don’t always have to be bound by a licence 
• contractual licences and equity:
• a contractual licence is used as a flexible device in order to achieve an equitable
result 
• equity may come to the aid of the licensee
• court may enforce that the licensor will not revoke the licence before the
purpose/period has been completed 
• e
...
Court of Equity may grant an injunction to restrain the licensor from revoking
the licence in breach of the contractual term 
• however for short-term licences like Wood an injunction is impractical so
the licensee’s remedy becomes damages
• more appropriate for medium/long-term 
• Chandler v Kerly  [1978] 2 All ER 942: Chandler and Mrs Kerly, who was
separated from her husband, formed a relationship, Chandler purchased the
matrimonial home of Mrs Kerly and her husband, and moved in with Mrs Kerly
and her 2 children, Chandler ended the relationship and sought possession of
the house, held that Mrs Kerly had a contractual licence terminable by
reasonable notice, which in the circumstances was 12 months
• Tanner v Tanner [1975] 3 All ER 776: unmarried couple with children, father had
purchased a house for the mother and children to live in, mother had given up
Rent Act-protected accommodation to move in, mother was held to have no

KMB

2 of 5

Real Property Law

Licences & Estoppel

proprietary interest in the house, but she was entitled to a contractual licence to
live in the property until the children were 18
• Errington v Errington [1952] 1 All ER 149: father bought a house in his own name
for his son and daughter-in-law, he paid 1/3 of the purchase price and they paid
the future  instalments on the understanding that they would inherit it, father
died  leaving the house to his widow, the son departed from the home,
held that the daughter-in-law had a right to the property due to equity 

Licence Protected by Estoppel
• doctrine of proprietary estoppel prevents the revocation of a right affecting land that one
•
•

•

•
•

party has been led by the other to believe is permanent 
its effect is to prevent a person from enforcing his strict legal rights when it would be
inequitable in light of the parties’ conduct and whatever has taken place between them
a party has no recognized legal interest in the land, but it would be inequitable in the
particular circumstances for him to be denied a right to occupy 
• i
...
if X owns land but Y expends money on that land, Y will be able to acquire an
interest in it, equity will ensure that Y’s expectations will not be defeated 
the doctrine is bound with the law of licences in two respects: 
• 1) owner of the land has given a person a licence to do something on the land
i
...
licence to build a house on the land, and is protected by estoppel if the
requirements of the doctrine are present 
• 2) in order to satisfy the equity that may have arisen in favour of the person who
has relied on the owner, the court may grant that person an irrevocable licence
to occupy the land 
a licence protected by estoppel is binding on third parties with notice of its existence
3 cases where the doctrine of estoppel may apply:

—> Case of Incomplete Gifts
• estoppel may arise where X intends to give Y a gift of land, but its incomplete
because the appropriate formalities have not been complied with 
• Dillwyn v Llewelyn  [1861-73] All ER Rep 384:  father allowed his son to have
possession of his (the father’s) land and signed an informal memorandum
purporting to transfer the fee simple to the son
...
After the father’s death, the son
claimed to be entitled to the fee simple
...


KMB

3 of 5

Real Property Law

Licences & Estoppel

• Lord Westbury in Dillwyn v Llewelyn: "If A puts B in possession of a piece of
land, and tells him, ‘I give it to you that you may build a house on it’, and B, on
the strength of that promise, with the knowledge of A, expends a large sum of
money in building a house accordingly, I cannot doubt that the donee acquires a
right from the subsequent transaction to call on the donor to perform the
contract and complete the imperfect donation which was made
...
The son was under the impression that he would be
permitted to live there as long as he wished
...
Possession was refused by the Court of Appeal
on the ground that the son had acquired, as against his father, an irrevocable
licence arising by proprietary estoppel
...

—> Case of Unilateral Mistake 
• Lord Cranworth in Ramsden v Dyson [1866] LR 1 HL 129: If a stranger begins to
build on my land supposing it to be his own, and I, perceiving his mistake,
abstain from setting him right, and leave him to persevere in his error, a Court of
Equity will not allow me afterwards to assert my title to the land in which he had
expended money on the supposition that the land was his own
...
e
...
When the landlord gave the tenant notice to quit,
the tenant claimed for reimbursement of his expenditure, basing his claim on proprietary
estoppel
...

—> Reliance
• for there to be an estoppel the claimant should have relied and acted on the assurance
• i
...
he was induced to act in a certain way because of the assurance given to him 
• Greasely v Cooke [1980] 3 All ER 710: held that if clear assurances have been made and a
detriment has been suffered, the court may presume that there has been reliance
• burden of proof is on to the defendant to show that there has been no
reliance, i
...
claimant would have done the detrimental act irrespective of
any assurance given to him

—> Detriment
• claimant must show he has suffered a detriment in R on the defendant’s A 
• detriment can take any form as long as its not trivial or minimal 
• most common example of a detriment is expenditure of money in building on the land
• Trenchfield v Leslie (1994) 31 JLR 497, Court of Appeal, Jamaica: L lived in her uncle’s
house for 3 years taking care of him without payment and spending money on repairing
the house, there was some evidence that the uncle promised to leave her the house by
his will, but no concluded agreement, after his death an executrix (T) of his will sought
possession, magistrate refused to grant possession to T, Court of Appeal dismissed T’s
appeal, L was acting to her detriment so she was awarded the house

• satisfying the equity:
• where a claimant has acquired a right by estoppel, its for the court in each case
to decide in what way the equity can be satisfied 
• aka its open to the court to award the claimant any remedy it deems
appropriate 

KMB

5 of 5



---