types of licence n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Types of Licence PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Types of Licence

Types of Licence

252 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

Types of Licence

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Types of Licence • 3 issues: • What different types of licence are there? • Can they be enforced against the licensor? • Can they be enforced against third parties? • Licences: • Bare licence. • Licence coupled with an interest. • Contractual licence. • Licence by estoppel.

  2. Bare Licence • Granted gratuitously (no consideration) • Express • Invite friend to house. • Implied • Approach front door to house. • Implication can be rebutted.

  3. Bare Licence “When a householder lives in a dwelling-house to which there is a garden in front and does not lock the gate…it gives an implied licence to any member of the public who has lawful reason for doing so to proceed from the gate to the front door…and to inquire whether he may be admitted.” Diplock LJ in Robson v Hallett [1967] 2 Q.B. 939.

  4. Bare Licence Enforcement against original licensor • Can be revoked by licensor at any time. • Must allow reasonable time to leave the property. • Expression “f*** off” term of abuse rather than revocation of licence. (Gilham v Breidenbach [1982] R.T.R. 328)

  5. Bare Licence Enforcement against successors in title • Personal interest between licensor and licensee. • As can be revoked at any time by licensor can also be revoked at will by successors in title to the licensor.

  6. Licence coupled with an interest “ A licence to go on land to sever and remove trees…are accepted examples of a licence coupled with an interest.” Meggary J in Hounslow LBC v Twickenham Garden Development Ltd [1971] Ch.233.

  7. Licence coupled with an interest Enforcement against original licensor • Can’t be revoked as long as underlying interest continues. Enforcement against successors in title • Binding on successor in title if takes the property subject to the underlying interest.

  8. Contractual licence • Granted by contract (valuable consideration) • Short term licences: • Entry to cinema, football match, car park. • Long term licences: • Occupy house/flat/shop. • Tanner v Tanner [1975] 1 WLR 1346 • Chandler v Kerley [1978] 1 WLR 693 • Horrocks v Forray [1976] 1 WLR 230

  9. Contractual licence Enforcement against original licensor • Licence for specified period cannot be revoked until contractual period has expired. • R v Inhabitants of Horndon-on-the-Hill (1816) 4 M & S 562. • Wood v Leadbitter (1845) 13 M & W 838. • Hurst v Picture Theatres Ltd [1915] 1 KB 1 • Winter Garden Theatre v Millenium Productions [1948] AC 173.

  10. Contractual licence Enforcement against successors in title • Traditional position: • Same as any other contract. Not binding on successor as not a party to the contract. • Benefit of a contract can be assigned but the burden can’t. • Clore v Theatrical Properties Ltd [1936] 3 All E.R. 483.

  11. Contractual licence Enforcement against successors in title • Elevation to an equitable interest in land? • Errington v Errington [1952] 1 KB 290 • Denning LJ: contractual licence gave rise to an ‘equity’ in favour of the daughter-in-law that binding on successors in title.

  12. Contractual licence Enforcement against successors in title • Binions v Evans [1972] Ch.359. • Denning MR: Contractual licence binding on purchasers because they had acquired the property with notice of its existence (unregistered land) • Other judges: same decision but for different reasons.

  13. Contractual licence Enforcement against successors in title • Re-assertion of traditional position • Ashburn Ansalt v Arnold [1989] 1 Ch. 1 • Reviewed cases where contractual licences held to be equitable interest in land and decided that incompatible with earlier House of Lords cases.

  14. Contractual licence Enforcement against successors in title “Before Errington the law appears to have been clear and well understood. It rested on an important and intelligible distinction between contractual obligations which gave rise to no estate or interest in the land and proprietary rights which, by definition, did. The far-reaching statement of principle in Errington was not supported by authority, not necessary for the decision of the case…the Errington rule was neither practically necessary nor theoretically convincing.” Fox LJ in Ashburn Ansalt v Arnold

  15. Licence by Estoppel What is an ‘estoppel’? “Equity…prevent a person insisting on his strict legal rights…when it would be inequitable for him to do so having regard to the dealings which have taken place between the parties.” Denning LJ in Crabb v Arun District Council [1976] 1 Ch 179

  16. Licence by Estoppel • Remedy under doctrine of proprietary estoppel. • Requirements of proprietary estoppel: • A representation • Reliance on the representation • Inwards v Baker [1965] 2 QB 29. • Act to detriment in reliance on representation. • Re Basham [1986] 1 WLR 1498

  17. Licence by Estoppel Enforcement against original licensor • Plimmer v Wellington Corporation (1884) 9 App Cas 699 • Pascoe v Turner [1979] 1 WLR 431 • Representation: House & contents yours. • Reliance: remained in house. • Act to detriment: spent savings on improvements.

  18. Licence by Estoppel Enforcement against original licensor • Matharu v Matharu (1994) 68 P&CR 93 • Wife acted to detriment in mistaken belief house belonged to husband. • Held: case of proprietary estoppel but only granted licence to remain in house for life on basis take responsibility for repairs/financial outgoings.

  19. Licence by Estoppel Enforcement against original licensor • Sledmore v Dalby 91996) 72 P&CR 196 • Relative circumstances of the parties • Proportionality between remedy & detriment intended to avoid. • Not inequitable to allow defendant’s expectations to be defeated & order for possession made against defendant.

  20. Licence by Estoppel Enforcement against successor in title • Greasely v Cooke [1980] 1 WLR 1306 • Held: Case of proprietary estoppel. Had right to remain in house for as long as wished. • BUT successors in title not purchasers for value (inherited property)

  21. Licence by Estoppel Enforcement against successor in title Unregistered Land • ER Ives Investment Ltd v High [1967] 2 QB 379 • Estoppel an equitable interest that not a class on Land Charge • Therefore not void for non-registration & binding on purchaser with notice.

  22. Licence by Estoppel Enforcement against successor in title Registered Land • S.116 Land Registration Act 2002 “It is hereby declared for the avoidance of doubt that, in relation to registered land…an equity by estoppel…has effect from the time the equity arises as an interest capable of binding successors in title .”