LAND LAW- LICENCES

WHAT IS A LICENCE?
This is permission from an owner of land (licensor) to the licensee to use the land for an agreed purpose.

In general, licences are different from all the other rights as they are not property rights. Note this principle from Thomas v Sorell, Vaughan CJ mentioned that a licence properly passeth no interest nor alters or transfers property in any thing.

There are various types of licences:
1. BARE LICENCES
It is the licences given without any consideration from the licensee. For example, when you are invited someone's house for a party. They can be withdrawn by the licensor at any time.

2. LICENCES COUPLED WITH GRANT
Where the licence is linked to an interest in the land. For example, a licence to go on to land to collect wood. The right to collect wood is a profit.

In Hurst v Picture Theatre Ltd, the court held that a cinema ticket could grant an interest in land but this was criticized by Latham CJ in the Australian case, Cowell v Rosehill Rececourse, where he pointed out that the decision in Hurst 'ignores the distinction between a personal and property right.' Hurst was really a contractual licence.

3. CONTRACTUAL LICENCES
Where a licence is given for valuable consideration.

Note: Make sure that we are clear that when the licences can be revoked. At common law contractual licences and bare licences can in principle be revoked at any time, although equitable remedies may be used to restrain a breach.

EXAMPLE:
Jacey pay $100 for a ticket to a test match. She was just starting to enjoy the game when an attendant tells her to leave. She was just told to leave without any reason and, when she refused, she was forcibly ejected. It seems that she had been mistaken for someone else who was a troublemaker.

In the case Winter Gardens Theatre v Millennium Productions Ltd,
The owners of a theatre licensed it for 6 months to Millennium Productions but later gave them 1 month notice to leave, after Millennium Productions had contracted with a production company for it to put on a play at the theatre for 6 months. It was held that a licence can be revoked on giving reasonable notice and here the revocation was valid.

Revision point- Distinction between licence and lease is that licence of property has no security tenure whilst lease has.

EQUITABLE REMEDIES TO PREVENT REVOCATION OF A LICENCE:
When equitable remedies became available in all courts after the Jucicature Acts 1873-1875 equitable remedies became available, in particular, injunctions and specific performance to protect the licensee. In Winter Garden Theatre v Millennium Production, the House of Lords said, obiter, that where a contractual licence is, on its terms, irrevocable, then the revocation in breach of contract can be restrained by injunction.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LICENCES AND THIRD PARTIES
Distinguishing between:
1. Bare licences - cannot bind third parties
2. Licences coupled with grant - If the grant confers a proprietary interest in land then the licences, as linked to the grant, will binds third parties.
3. Contractual licences - problem area.

The orthodoxy view of this point lays on the case King v David Allen Ltd,
Where a licence was granted allowing the fixing advertisements to the wall of a cinema. The licensor then granted a lease of the cinema to a third party. This cause that the lease has ended the contractual licence.

However, there are cases where the courts attempted to make contractual licences binding on third parties:
i. Errington v Errington and Woods- a contractual licence can bind third parties.
ii. Binions v Evans- constructive trust to hold that a licence can bind a purchaser.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROPRIETARY ESTOPPEL
The elements of proprietary estoppel are:
1. Commitment or promise by one person (X) to another (Y).
2. Which X intends to rely on (Y),
3. Where Y's actual reliance to his detriment is reasonable in the circumstances
4. An objective test applies: the question is whether a promise to X can reasonably be understood as a commitment by X to Y.

The basis of the doctrine can be seen as unconscionability: would it be inconscionable for X, when Y has relied on X's promise to his detriment, to then depart from that promise?

EXAMPLE
Jacey owns a piece of land and says to Casper:' You can have it as a market garden.' Casper takes over the land and develops it as a market garden but the land is never conveyed to him. Jacey later attempts to turn Casper out.

Here, there is no deed of conveyance but equity provides that it could be unjust to allow a person in Jacey's position to rely on this fact, so it may be remedied by the doctrine of proprietary estoppel.

PROPRIETARY ESTOPPEL AND PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL
Promisory- applies in contractual relationship and essentially operates as defence to prevent a party from going back on a promise

Proprietary- applies in property as well as contractual situations and can give rights where none existed before.

Examples of proprietary estoppel can be shown in Inwards v Baker, a father allowed his son to build a bungalow on land owned by the father. The son was granted a licence for life.

RECENT DEVELOPMENT ON ESTOPPEL
Yeoman's Row Management v Cobbe
An oral agreement between the company and Cobbe provided that a block of flats owned by the company would be demolished and Cobbe would apply for planning permission to erect house in theie place, with any axcess of the proceeds over $24million shared equally with the company. After planning permission had been obtained the company went back on the oral agreement and demanded more money. Cobbe claimed that the company was estopped from going back on the agreement.
\The court held that the estoppel did not apply. No specific property right had been promised to Cobbe would it be unconscionable for the company to go back on its assurance as Cobbe knew that only a formal contract would be binding.

Once estoppel has been established the court must decide the remedy.
In Jennings v Rice,
X worked for nearly 30 years as a gardener and odd-job man for Y. He was initially paid but then Y promised him that she would leave him her house and that he would be 'all right one day'. After this he was no longer paid. Y died intestate. X claimed for either Y's whole estate or the value of the house.
\The court would be awarded a larger sum would have been out of all proportion to what might have charged for his services.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROPRIETARY ESTOPPEL AND THIRD PARTIES
A right by proprietary estoppel may bind a purchaser where title to the land is registered.

s116 LRA 2002
This allows an equity by estoppel to be registered and can take effect from the moment it arises. Therefore, it can be protected by a notice against the title.


In addition, if the person claiming the estoppel in occupation, under it he/she may have an overriding interest under Sch 3 para 2 LRA 2002.