#5850 - Licences - Irish Land Law

Licences

• A licence is a permission which entitles one person to enter the land of another.

Bare Licence

• Thomas v Sorrell – the grant of a licence does not transfer any interest or estate in the land to the licencee.

• Wood v Leadbitter – a parol licence is revocable at any time

• Greater London Council v Jenkins (CA) – held to be a contractual as opposed to a bare licence due to a condition requiring the property be inspected by the defendants during their occupation.

Licence Coupled with an Interest

• This licence arises when somebody is given an interest in land (e.g. right to cut trees) and is required in order to allow the person to exploit his interest (James Jones & Sons v Earl of Tankerville)

• Gilmore v The O'Conor Don (SC) – a life tenant could only grant a licence couple with an interest in cutting down and removing trees for his life and the licence expires after his death.

• Frogley v Lovelace (Ch) – a specifically enforceable contract setting up a licence coupled with in an interest will allow the plaintiff to obtain an injunction.

• Hurst v Picture Theatres (CA) – a plaintiff who was removed from a cinema on foot of the mistake belief that he had not paid successfully sued for assault – he was not a trespasser and his licence could not be revoked if supported by consideration

Contractual Licence

• Whipp v Mackey (SC) – a licensor can be prevented revoking a licence where this would be a breach of contract

• Winter Garden Theatre v Millenium Productions (HoL) – agreed with the principle that a licence cannot be considered separately from the contract which created it – their terms are the same

• Hounslow LBC v Twickenham Garden Developments (Ch) – it was held to be a term of a contract for the construction of buildings not to revoke any licences except in accordance with the contract

• Tanner v Tanner (CA)

• the defendant lived with the plaintiff who was the father of her daughters

• after he went to live with another woman he purported to revoke her licence

• the court (Lord Denning) held that a contractual licence could be implied from the circumstances, though there are problems with the certainty of contractual terms

• McGill v S (HC)

• the parties had been co-habiting and during this time constructed a house in Ireland

• The court decline to follow Tanner as it was not founded on any clear principle nor was it possible to ascertain when or how the licence came into being

• Chandler v Kerley (CA) – Tanner followed, but less expansively – an actual contract existed (defendants sold house to plaintiff cheaply in exchange for licence to live there) and the licence was to be determinable on reasonable notice.

• Hardwick v Johnson (CA)

• A mother purchased a house for her son and his wife of which she sought possession following the break up of their marriage and the abandonment by the son of his wife

• where a house is occupied under an informal domestic relationship without thought as to what the consequences of a break up would be, the court must imply a legal relationship from the circumstances on the basis of fictional common intention.

• thus the wife was entitled to remain in the house until some supervening event justified the termination of her licence.

• Verall v Great Yarmouth BC – equitable relief is available where someone seeks to revoke a contractual licence before the grantee has taken up occupation

• Browne v Dundalk UDC (HC) – In the case of a contract enforceable by way of judicial review, the court should annul the revocation of the licence unless in the circumstances it would be unreasonable or unfair to do so.

• William Neville & Sons v Guardian Builders (HC) – ordered specific performance of a licence agreement

A New Interest in Land?

• King v David Allen & Sons Billposting (HoL) – the contractual licence is not an interest in land and a lessee is not obliged to recognise it.

• Errington v Errington (CA)

• A father purchased a house for his son and daughter-in-law and gave them a licence to live there.

• Denning LJ found that equity had created a new form of proprietary interest from the contractual licence which precluded the contract being breached through its revocation.

• Binson v Evans (CA) – a right to occupy for life arising by contract gives the occupier an equitable interest in the land, in that case a reduction in the purchase price was granted subject to the right being honoured.

• Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold (CA) – a third party might be bound to honour a licence if his conscience was affected in such a way that would justify the court in holding that the land was held under a constructive trust

• Manchester Airport v Dutton (CA) – A licencee with a right to occupy land has a right to bring an action for possession against a trespasser, in so far as such an action is necessary in order to protect his rights under the licence.

Licence by Estoppel

• Estoppel can operate to render a bare licence irrevocable.

• Cullen v Cullen (HC) – father represented that a mobile home could be placed on his land and was estopped from going back on his representation.

• Inwards v Baker – an estoppel could stop somebody from using their legal rights to evict a licencee

• ER Ives Investments v High (CA) – The plaintiff's predecessors in title, by licencing the use of a yard as a right of way to the defendant, encouraging him to build a garage and and accepting payment from him to defray the cost of resufacing the yard, had raised an equity which gave the defendant an equitable interest in the right of way.

• McMahon v Kerry Co Council (HC) – applied the principles of proprietary estoppel including the grant of an equitable title.

• Re JR (HC) – challenged the view that only proprietary estoppel could give the court a broad discretion to give effect to the equity.

• Estoppel licences bind successors in title who have notice, but are personal to the person to whom they afford rights.

Rights of Residence

• Rights of residence usually arise where a grantor disposes of land to the grantee subject to the right of another to live on the property.

• Keleghan v Daly (IrKB) – The grantor granted land to her son with a covenant that she and her daughter be maintained and allowed to occupy the dwelling house – this was a lien on the lands for such maintenance which would be binding on a subsequent purchaser for value with notice

• Re Shanahan (Ch) – A marriage settlement required that the couple to be married would support, clothe and maintain the husband's brother in residence on the farm – C's right of residence was a charge on the lands

• National Bank v Keegan (SC)

• differentiation between a general right of residence, which merely entitle the holder to live on the property, and particular rights of residence, which reserve or give the exclusive use during life of a special room or rooms in the dwelling-house.

• a particular right of...