The Termination of Bare Licences

Cambridge Law Journal

Volumn 60, Issue 1, 2001, Pages 89-108

  Hill, Jonathan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85012462609     PISSN: 00081973     EISSN: 14692139     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0008197301000630     Document Type: Article

References (129)

1. Gray v. Taylor [1998] 1 W.L.R. 1093.
2. Robson v. Hallett [1967] 2 Q.B. 939, 951
3. Lambert v. Roberts [1981] 2 All E.R. 15, 19.
4. Hurst v. Picture Theatres Ltd. [1915] 1 K.B. 1.
5. [1985] A.C. 809.
6. AG Securities v. Vaughan [1990] 1 A.C. 417.
7. Wallis v. Harrison (1838) 4 M. & W. 538.
8. King v. David Allen & Sons (Billposting) Ltd. [1916] 2 A.C. 54.
9. James Jones & Sons, Ltd. v. Tankerville (Earl) [1909] 2 Ch. 440.
10. (1845) 13 M. & W. 838, 845.
11. See also Coleridge J. in Wood V. Manley (1839) 11 Ad. & E. 34, 37–88.
12. Cf. Vaughan v. Hampson (1875) 33 L.T. 15
13. Hurst v. Picture Theatres Ltd. [1915] 1 K.B. 1 which extended the notion of a licence coupled with an interest in cases where no proprietary interest was involved.
14. Both cases must be regarded as having been wrongly decided on this point, though the result in Hurst v. Picture Theatres Ltd. can be explained on another basis (see the speech of Viscount Simon L.C. in Winter Garden Theatre (London) Ltd. v. Millennium Productions Ltd. [1948] A.C. 173, 188).
15. See also the judgment of Megarry J. in Hounslow London Borough Council v. Twickenham Garden Developments Ltd. [1971] 1 Ch. 233, 243–245, 254
16. the judgment of Mahon J. in Mayfield Holdings Ltd. v. Moana Reef Ltd. [1973] 1 N.Z.L.R. 309, 315.
17. Woody v. Manley (1839) 11 Ad. & E. 34
18. James Jones & Sons, Ltd. v. Tankerville (Earl) [1909] 2 Ch. 440.
19. Some make a threefold division (contract, bare and estoppel), but it has been rightly pointed out that “[p]roprietary estoppel has no necessary connection with the law of licences”: C. Harpum, Megarry & Wade: The Law of Real Property, 6th ed. (London 2000), para. 13–037.
20. See also R.J. Smith, Property Law, 3rd ed. (London 2000), p. 429.
21. Protection from Eviction Act 1977 (as amended).
22. Llanelly Railway & Dock Co. v. London & North Western Railway Co. (1875) L.R. 7 H.L. 550.
23. Compare Minister of Health v. Bellotti [1944] K.B. 298
24. Australian Blue Metal Ltd. v. Hughes [1963] A.C. 74, 98.
25. See Protection from Eviction Act 1977, s. 5 (as amended by Housing Act 1988, s. 32).
26. Protection from Eviction Act 1977, s. 3A(7)(b).
27. These expressions are used by Lord Macdermott in Winter Garden Theatre (London) Ltd. v. Millennium Productions Ltd. [1948] A.C. 173, 204, 206.
28. See C. Harpum, Megarry & Wade: The Law of Real Property, 6th ed. (London 2000), para. 17–003.
29. See K.J. Gray & S.F. Gray, Elements of Land Law, 3rd. ed. (London 2000), paras. 7.18–7.27
30. C. Harpum, Megarry & Wade: The Law of Real Property, 6th ed. (London 2000), ch. 13.
31. Crabb v. Arun D.C. [1976] Ch. 179.
32. Pascoe v. Turner [1979] 1 W.L.R. 431.
33. Sledmore v. Dalby (1996) 72 P. & C.R. 196.
34. See S. Moriarty, “Licences and Land Law: Legal Principles and Public Policies” (1984) 100 L.Q.R. 376, 377–388.
35. For consideration of the principle (and its limits) see Burrows v. Sharp (1991) 23 H.L.R. 82.
36. Webb v Paternoster (1619) Pop. 151 is said to lay down the rule that “a licence executed is not countermandable; but only when it is executory”: Lord Ellenborough C.J. in Winter v. Brockwell (1807) 8 East 308, 310.
37. (1831) 7 Bing. 682.
38. C. Harpum, Megarry & Wade: The Law of Real Property, 6th ed. (London 2000), para. 17–012.
39. (1807) 8 East 308.
40. Tindal C.J. in Liggins v. Inge (1831) 7 Bing. 682, 694.
41. Cf. Feltham v. Cartwright (1839) 5 Bing.
42. N.C. 569, to which Megarry J. referred in Hounslow London Borough Council v. Twickenham Garden Developments Ltd. [1971] 1 Ch. 233, 255.
43. [1980] 1 W.L.R. 1306.
44. Tindal CJ. in Liggins v. Inge (1831) 7 Bing. 682, 694.
45. (1826) 5 B. & C. 221.
46. (1834) 1 Cr. M. & R. 418.
47. J. McGhee, Snell's Equity, 13th ed. (London 2000), para. 39–15.
48. (1851) 14 Beav. 530.
49. See also Powell v. Thomas (1848) 6 Hare 300.
50. (1851) 14 Beav. 530, 532 (“the Defendant having consented to the making of the watercourse, and stood by and allowed the Plaintiffs to expend money in its construction, on the faith of that consent, could not be permitted to recal [sic] the licence”).
51. Ward v. Kirkland [1967] Ch. 194.
52. C. Harpum, Megarry & Wade: The Law of Real Property, 6th ed. (London 2000), para. 17–012.
53. The eclipsing of the common law doctrine by equity seems to have started in the nineteenth century: Powell v. Thomas (1848) 6 Hare 300
54. Duke of Devonshire v. Eglin (1851) 14 Beav. 530.
55. The doctrine was, however, referred to in Hounslow London Borough Council v. Twickenham Garden Developments Ltd. [1971] 1 Ch. 233.
56. Even in the nineteenth century, there were cases in which the common law doctrine was not referred to even though the facts would appear to fall squarely within its scope: see, for example, R. v. The Inhabitants of Hordon-on-the-Hill (1816) 4 M. & S. 562 (in which B licensed A to build a house on land owned by B).
57. Ward v. Kirkland [1967] Ch. 194.
58. Cf. Inwards v. Baker [1965] 2 Q.B. 29.
59. (1870) L.R. 5 C.P. 334.
60. See, for example, E. & L. Berg Homes Ltd. v. Grey (1979) 253 E.G. 473.
61. See Robson v. Hallett [1967] 2 Q.B. 939
62. Lambert v. Roberts [1981] 2 All E.R. 15 (both cases involving uninvited police officers).
63. E. & L. Berg Homes Ltd v. Grey (1979) 253 E.G. 473.
64. See, for example, Governing Body of Henrietta Barnett School v. Hampstead Garden Suburb Institute (1995) 93 L.G.R. 470 (although it should he noted that the analysis of Carnwath J. was in terms of reasonable notice of revocation, rather than a reasonable packing-up period).
65. Cornish v. Stubbs (1870) L.R. 5 C.P. 334.
66. See, for example, Kerrison v. Smith [1897] 2 Q.B. 445.
67. [1967] 2 Q.B. 939, 953.
68. (1979) 253 E.G. 473.
69. [1944] K.B. 298.
70. (1979) 253 E.G. 473, 476.
71. [1948] A.C. 173, 204.
72. See Bovill C.J.'s judgment at (1870) L.R. 5 C.P. 334, 338.
73. [1948] A.C. 173.
74. C. Harpum, Megarry & Wade: The Law of Real Property, 6th ed. (London 2000), para. 17–003.
75. K.J. Gray, Elements of Land Law, 2nd ed. (London 1993), p. 898.
76. In the new edition—K.J. Gray & S.F. Gray, Elements of Land Law, 3rd. ed. (London 2000)—the equivalent passage reads: “effective revocation of a bare licence generally requires no prior notice” (p. 156).
77. See also J.-A. MacKenzie and M. Phillips, Textbook on Land Law, 8th ed. (London 1999), para. 17.2.2
78. J. Stevens and R.A. Pearce, Land Law (London 1998), p. 413
79. M.P. Thompson, Land Law (London 1995), p. 169.
80. See Lord Denman C.J. in Turner v. Doe d. Bennett (1842) 9 M. & W. 643, 646.
81. See also the judgment of Isaac J. in Landale v. Menzies (1909) 9 C.L.R. 89, 133.
82. Co. Litt. 55b.
83. Property Law, 3rd ed. (London 2000), p. 429.
84. (1619) Pop. 151.
85. Alderson B. in (1845) 13 M. & W. 838, 846–847.
86. [1991] 1 W.L.R. 1241, 1248.
87. [1948] A.C. 173, 196.
88. [1894] 2 Ch. 437.
89. The other case cited is Armstrong v. Sheppard & Short Ltd. [1959] 2 Q.B. 384. This citation is not easy to explain as there appears to be no discussion of the question of notice by Lord Evershed M.R., who gave the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
90. Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. The King [1931] A.C. 414
91. Governing Body of Henrietta Barnett School v. Hampstead Garden Suburb Institute (1995) 93 L.G.R. 470.
92. [1894] 2 Ch. 437. In the account which follows the facts relevant to the main issue in the case (namely, the landlord's implied covenant not to derogate from his grant) are omitted.
93. (1865) L.R. 1 H.L. 129.
94. (1851) 1 Beav. 530.
95. (1807) 8 East 308.
96. [1894] 2 Ch. 437, 448.
97. (1826) 5 B. & C. 221.
98. Compare Cable v. Bryant [1908] 1 Ch. 259
99. Bryant v. Lefever (1879) 4 C.P.D. 172.
100. (1870) L.R. 5 C.P. 334.
101. (1874) L.R. 9 Q.B. 400.
102. The third judge, Lush J., concurred with both reasoned judgments (at p. 406).
103. (1874) L.R. 9 Q.B. 400, 405.
104. [1931] A.C. 414.
105. A.C.
106. (1995) 93 L.G.R. 470.
107. (1870) L.R. 5 C.P. 334.
108. (1874) L.R. 9 Q.B. 400.
109. See, for example, C. Harpum, Megarry & Wade: The Law of Real Property, 6th ed. (London 2000), para. 17–003
110. P. Sparkes, A New Land Law (Oxford 1999), p. 377.
111. C. Harpum, Megarry & Wade: The Law of Real Property, 6th ed. (London 2000), para. 17–008.
112. See, for example, the statement in M. Dixon, Principles of Land Law, 3rd ed. (London 1999), para. 9.3.1
113. that “the licensor may terminate the licence by giving reasonable notice to the licensee” for which Robson v. Hallett [1967] 2 Q.B. 939
114. the Hampstead Garden Suburb Institute case (1995) 93 L.G.R. 470 are cited.
115. [1948] A.C. 173, 208. See also Sir Valentine Holmes K.C. (arguendo) at p. 187
116. Lord Diplock in Greater London Council v. Jenkins [1975] 1 W.L.R. 155, 158.
117. See P. Sparkes, A New Land Law (1999), p. 378.
118. Cf. T. Kerbel [1996] Conv 63, 66.
119. It is worth noting that, although Carnwath J. adopted a similarly narrow view of the doctrine of proprietary estoppel in Gillett v. Holt [1998] 3 All E.R. 917
120. this view was rejected by the Court of Appeal [2000] 3 W.L.R. 815.
121. An obvious example is the heretical doctrine propounded by Lord Denning M.R. to the effect that a contractual licence takes effect as an equitable interest in land (see Errington v. Errington [1952] 1 K.B. 290
122. Binions v. Evans [1972] Ch. 359)
123. which, notwithstanding the House of Lords' decision in National Provincial Bank Ltd. v. Ainsworth [1965] A.C. 1175
124. was not definitively rejected until Ashburn Anstalt v. Arnold [1989] Ch. 1.
125. See C. Harpum, Megarry & Wade: The Law of Real Property, 6th ed. (London 2000), paras. 17–016–17–019.
126. [1974] 2 W.L.R. 1241.
127. E. & L. Berg Homes Ltd. v. Grey (1979) 253 E.G. 473.
128. See Roskill LJ. in Crane v. Morris [1965] 1 W.L.R. 1104, 1109
129. Denning L.J. in Martinali v. Ramuz [1953] 1 W.L.R. 1196, 1199.