Licences

Question 1

Revocation

Answer 1

Winter Garden Theatre v Millennium Productions
- MP could terminate with one month’s notice
- WGT wanted to termintae so the concern was whether they could
- even though the contract was silent, the default rule of inherent power to revoke applied
- so, revokable, but reasonabe notice must be given
Hurst v Picture Theatres
- licence not revokable during performance
- reasonable notice must be given

Question 2

Remedies for revocation

Answer 2

• if the licensor wants to revoke, the licensee is permitted to be on the land and is present, then the court will not force the licencee to leave = Houndslow LBC v Wickenham = the ocurt will not let the licensor breach their own contract
• However, if the licensor wants to revoke and evict, and teh licensee is permitted to be on the land, but is not present …
  1. then the court will not allow the licensor to use self-help to re-enter the land = Thompson v Park
  2. the court may order the licensor to permit the licensee to enter the land [specific performance] = Verall v Great Yarmouth BC

Question 3

Licensee v strangers

Answer 3

contractual licensee in exclusive posession can
- sue a stranger for trespassing = National Provinical Bank v Ainsworth
- some may be able to sue in nuissance
- a mere licensee cannot sue

Question 4

Exclusive posession

Answer 4

1. objective physical element
2. subjective intention to possess
   = JA Pye [Oxford] Ltd v Graham

Question 5

pre-Dutton exlsuive possession

Answer 5

• licenses were personal rights; they do not bind strangers
• licencees in exclusive possession can bring action against stangers
• a licensee out of posession has no right to bring action agaisnst strangers

Question 6

Manchester Airport v Dutton

Answer 6

• MA sought to construct a second runway
• defendents were environmental protestors who entered the national trust to object to the works
• the NT granted the airpoert a licence
• So, this case concerned the airport lacking a title as a mere licensee not in exclusive posession
• three step reaosning:
  1. the airpoert’s claim is not defeated by their lack of exclusive possession
  2. claimining possession agaisnt a trespasser can be a necessary remedy to give effect to the rights of occupation the licensee enjoys
  3. the wuestion must be, what is the reach of the right and did D violate the enjoyment of it
  = if so, then a posession order may be granted

Question 7

Chadwick’s dissent in Dutton

Answer 7

• a licensee in possession could bring action due to having exclusive possession
• he used National Provincial Bank v Ainsworth to show that it is not the licence that gives you the right to sue, but the exclusive possession
• so, he takes an orthedox view on the relativity of title
• arguably, MA should have asked NT to evict D, although this us unlikely given their public role

Question 8

licensee vs. third parties

Answer 8

• King V David Allen = licences are NOT a property right, so cannot bind successors in title = orthodox view
• this was confirmed in Clore v Thetarical Properties

Question 9

Lord Denning’s challenges to the orthodox view

Answer 9

1. contractual licences are property rights = Errington v Errington
   - step 1 = breach of contract by the licensor grants the licensee certain equitable remedies
   - step 2 = the licensee has an equitable right to remain
   - step 3 = the right to remain is capable of binding third parties
   - However, no authority ststated this and it disregards s.4(1) LPA 1925
   - the decision was found per incurium
   - Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold found that licences are not property rights

Question 10

Lord Denning’s quest - part 2

Answer 10

2. A contractual licence is capable of generating new property rights = Binions v Evans
   - step 1 = a contractual licence gives rise to an equitable property interest
   - setp 2 = Evans could not be evicted because even is her licence was not a proprietary rights, the court could impose a contructive trust in her favour
   - this was seen as legtimate in Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold
   - It was specified in IDC v Clark = a contructive trust is only warranted in special circumstances
   - in Lloyd v Dugdale, the court jeld that a contractual licence us capable of generatinga newright agaisnt a successor in title, only if, the third party has undertaen a new obligation to give effect to the prior interest