Inwards v Baker

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtCourt of Appeal
Judgment Date13 Jan 1965
Judgment citation (vLex)[1965] EWCA Civ J0113-2

[1965] EWCA Civ J0113-2

In The Supreme Court of Judicature

Court of Appeal

From his Honor Judge Rawlings

Aylesbury County Court


The Masrer of the Rolls

Lord Justice Danckwerts and

Lord Justice Salmon

Inwards and others
Defendant Appellant

MR L. J. VERNEY (instructed by Messrs J. D. Langton & Passmore, Agents for Messrs Wilkins & Son, Aylesbury) appeared as Counsel for the Appellant.

MR W. GOODHART (instructed by Messrs Giffen, Couch & Archer, Luton) appeared as Counsel for the Respondents.


THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS: We need not trouble you, Mr. Verney.


In this case old Mr. Baker, if I may so describe the father, in 1931 was the owner of a little over six acres of land at Dunsmore in Buckinghamshire. His son, Jack Baker, was living in those parts and was thinking of erecting a bungalow. He had his eye on a piece of land but the price was rather too much for him. So the father said to him, "Why not put the bungalow on my land and make the bungalow a little bigger". That is what the son did. He did put the bungalow on his father's land. He built it with his own labor with the help of one or two men, and he got the materials. He bore a good deal of the expense himself but his father helped him with it, and he paid his father back some of it. Roughly he spent himself the sum of £150 out of a total of £300 expended. When it was finished, he went into the bungalow; and he has lived there ever since from 1931 down to date. His father visited him there from time to time.


In 1951 the father died. The only will he left was one he made as far back as 1922 before this land was bought or the bungalow was built. He appointed as executrix Miss Inwards, who had been living with him for many many years as his wife and by whom he had two children. He left nearly all his property to her and her two children by him. He left his son, Jack Baker, £400. Miss Inwards appointed her two children as trustees of the will with her. The trustees under the will did not take any steps to get Jack Baker out of the bungalow. In fact they visited him there from time to time. They all seem to have been quite friendly. But in the year 1963 they took proceedings to get Jack Baker out. Miss Inwards died during these proceedings. Her two children continue the proceedings as the trustees of the father's will.


The plaintiffs say that at the most Jack Baker had a license to be in the bungalow but it had been revoked and hehad no right to stay. The Judge has hold in their favor. He was referred to the case of Errington v. Errington in 1952, 1 King's Bench, p. 290, but the Judge held that that decision only protected a contractual licenses. He thought that, in order to be protected, the licensee must have a contract or promise by which he is entitled to be there. The Judge said: "I can find no promise made by the father to the son that he should remain in the property at all no contractual arrangement between them. True the father said that the son could live in the property, expressly or impliedly, but there is no evidence that this was arrived at as the result of a contract or promise merely an arrangement made casually because of the relationship which existed and knowledge that the son wished to erect a bungalow for residence". Thereupon, the Judge, with much reluctance, thought the case was not within Errington's case and said the son must go.


The son appeals to this Court. We have had the advantage of cases which were not cited to the County Court Judge, cases in the last century, notably Dillwvn v. Llewelvn. (1862) 4 De Gex, Fisher & Jones, p. 517, and Plimmer v. The Mayor etc. of Wellington, in 1884, 9 Appeal Cases, p. 699 This latter was a decision of the Privy Council which expressly affirmed and approved the statement of the law made by Lord Kingstown in the case of Ramadan, v. Dyson. Law Reports, 1 House of Lords, p. 129. It is quite plain from those authorities that if the owner of land requests another, or indeed allows another, to expend miner on the land under an expectation created or encouraged by the landlord that he will be able to remain there, that raises an equity in the licensee such as to entitle him to stay. He has a license coupled with an equity. Mr. Goodhart urged before us that the licensee could not stay...

To continue reading

Request your trial
344 cases
1 books & journal articles
  • 'Til death do us part? : Cohabitees and the law
    • Ireland
    • Irish Judicial Studies Journal Nbr. 2-2, July 2002
    • 1 July 2002
    ...she acts to her detriment, the representor is estopped from denying its accuracy or effectiveness if she so acts. Cf. Inwards v. Baker [1965] 2 Q.B. 29; [1965] 1 All E.R. 23 Cf. Hibberson v. George (1989) 12 Fam L.R. 725 where the Supreme Court of New South Wales was prepared to grant a cha......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT