A New Equitable Interest In Land*
| Date | 01 January 1953 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1953.tb02761.x |
| Published date | 01 January 1953 |
THE
MODERN
LAW
REVIEW
Vdume
16
January
1953
No.
1
A
N,EW
EQUITABLE
INTEREST
IN
LAND
*
l~
Emhagton
v.
Errington‘
the Court
of
Appeal has reoognised
L
new interest in land. This
is
what journalists call “news,” and
news moreovk that is calculated to excite
our
admiration or
our
pity according
to
our
individual views upon the underlying
purpose
of
the law.
To
some
this
judicial adventure
will
represent
normal
evolution, to others
it
will smack of blasphemy.
It
concerns
that Cinderella of the common law-the licence
to
enter land for
a
particular purpose. Its immediate, though not its ultimate,
origin
is
the view expressed
in
1915
in
Hurst
v.
Picture Theatres Ltd.2
and
supported by high authority in
Winter
.Garden
Thecpke Ltd.
v.
Millennium Productions Ltd.’
in
1948,
that a contractual licence,
followed by entry into occupation
of
the land, cannot be revoked
in
breach of contract
and
that an injunction is available to the
8censee
to
restrain such a revocation. There
is
nothing startling
in
this,
but its impact upon the law
of
real property has been
stressed by recent decisions. These now make
it
clear that not
only
the licensor himself, but
$so
his successors in title, except
a
purchaser
far
value of the legal estate without notice
of
the
contract, may be restrained from revocation. Thus has
it
come
to
pass that
a
licensee may acquire
an
equitable interest similar
in
certain respects to that arising from an estate contract.
If,
for instance, an employee too old
to
work is told by his
employer that he may remain in occupation
of
his cottage rent
free for the rest
of
2s
life,
the position between the parties has
been
described as follows by
Sir
Raymond Evershed
M.R.
:
“
Since the recent decision in
Winter
Garh
Thatre Ltd.
v.
Millennium Products Ltd.‘
I
think that although
a
licence
of
that kind may,
a@
from the terms. of th-e contra.&,
be
revoked,
it
may now
be
taken that
if
the landlord, having
made the arrangement, sought to revoke
it,
he would be
restrained by the court from doing
so.
Thus the result
is
arrived
at
that the tenant was entitled as licensee to occupy
the premises without charge for the rest
of
his
days.”
A
public lecture delivered
on
December
3,
1952,
at
King’s
College, Loaidon.
119521 1
X.B.
290.
119151
1
X.B.
1.
[1948]
A.C.
173.
[1948]
A.C.
173.
Foster
v.
Robinson
119511 1
K.B.
149,156.
1
VOL.
16
1
To continue reading
Request your trial