1. Intro
   1. Permission to do something which would otherwise be trespass
   2. Eg to live in property
   3. Does not create proprietary interest
      1. No legal or equitable interest
   4. Express or implied
      1. No formalities required
   5. And easements
      1. Easement benefits the land of the person to whom it is granted
      2. Must be a dominant and servient tenement
      3. Must be expressly created in writing
         1. s53(1) LPA 1925
      4. Of, if legal, by deed
         1. s52(1) LPA 1925
   6. And leases
      1. Lease grants exclusive possession for a term at a rent
         1. Street v Mountford [1985]
      2. Rent is not essential
         1. Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold [1989]
      3. Evidence of legal intention
         1. Eg payment of lump sum
      4. Antoniades v Villiers [1990]
         1. Tried to avoid by artificial means
         2. Required couple to sign separate agreements
         3. Put extra beds in small rooms
         4. Regarded as tenants
      5. AG Securities v Vaughan [1990]
         1. Individuals arrived at different times
         2. Allocation of rooms subject to alteration
         3. Regarded as licencees
      6. Aslan v Murphy [1990]
         1. No right to occupation between 12 and 2pm
         2. Regarded as a pretence
         3. Provision of services not conclusive
         4. Unless has unrestricted access to room
      7. Westminster CC v Clarke [1992]
         1. Temporary accomodation
         2. Rooms could be reallocated
         3. Warden has right to exclude
         4. Regarded as licencees
2. Bare licences
   1. Licence granted for no consideration
      1. Eg permission to cross field
   2. Can be revoked at any time
      1. Must allow reasonable time to leave
      2. May use reasonable force if you do not comply
      3. Revocation must be made clear
      4. Coarse abuse is not sufficient
         1. Gilham v Breidenbach [1982]
   3. Purely personal
      1. Benefit may not be passed to anyone else
      2. Burden does not pass to purchaser of land
3. Licence coupled with an interest
   1. Eg right to catch fish comes with implied licence to cross land to reach river
   2. profit a prendre can be a legal right
   3. Cannot revoke licence while grant continues
   4. Burden and benefit of licence will pass with interest to which it is coupled
4. Licences and constructive trusts
   1. Binions v Evans [1972]
      1. Sold land 'subject to' contractual licence
      2. Denning held created a constructive trust
   2. Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold [1989]
      1. Rejected Denning's view
      2. Unless conscience affected
      3. Eg had given assurance or paid reduced price
      4. May impose constructive trust in these circumstances
5. Contractual licences
   1. Revocability
      1. Hurst v Picture Theatres Ltd (1915)
         1. Had right to watch film as had purchased ticket
         2. Licence was coupled with a grant and so could not be revoked
      2. Winter Garden Theatre v Millenium Productions (1946)
         1. Based decision on equitable jurisdiction to prevent breach of contract
      3. Tanner v Tanner [1975]
         1. Mother of twins had right to live in family home
         2. Father could not revoke while children of school age
         3. Although no express grant of licence
      4. General rule
         1. If licence granted for a purpose
         2. Cannot be revoked while purpose remains
         3. And licencee remain within terms of licence
         4. Same applies if granted for period of time
   2. Benefit
      1. Benefit of a contract can be assigned
   3. Burden
      1. No proprietary interest
      2. Cannot bind successive owners
         1. Errington v Errington [1952]
            1. Contractual licence binds successive owners unless equity's darling
            2. Denning case
         2. Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold [1989]
            1. Rejected Errington view about contractual licences
            2. But could be other grounds
            3. Estate contract
            4. Had relied on representation
            5. Payments led to constructive trust
6. Licences and proprietary estoppel
   1. Estoppel
      1. A encourages B to believe will have interest in A's land
         1. Thorner v Major [2009]
            1. Assurance only had to be 'clear enough'
            2. Taciturn and undemonstrative men
            3. Spoke in oblique terms
            4. But was reasonable for him to draw conclusion
            5. Court held claimant entitled to farm
      2. Or acquieses in mistaken belief
      3. B acts on this belief to his detriment in relation to the land
      4. A knows what B is doing and raises no objection
         1. A may only be aware of possibility that detrimental act may occur
            1. Crabb v Arun DC [1976]
   2. Remedies
      1. Reliance based approach
         1. Compensates for loss
         2. Minimum necessary to do justice to the equity
            1. Crabb v Arun DC [1976]
      2. Remedial based approach
         1. Fulfills expectations
         2. Will generally take this approach unless out of proportion
      3. Dillwyn v Llewellyn (1862)
         1. Son built house on father's land
         2. Gift not executed by deed
         3. Courts fulfilled son's expectations
         4. Had right to have land conveyed to him
      4. Pascoe v Turner [1979]
         1. Widow ended relationship
         2. Believed house was hers
         3. Paid for improvements
         4. Claimant aware but did not stop her
         5. Courts ordered fee simple to be conveyed to her
      5. Jennings v Rice
         1. Court did not always have to fulfil expectations
         2. Court will weigh up all circumstances
         3. Must do justice to both parties
      6. Inwards v Baker [1965]
         1. Son built bungalow on father's land
         2. No clear indication of interest son was to have
         3. Fulfilled son's expectation of a home for life
   3. Third parties
      1. Hopgood v Brown [1955]
         1. Garage built crossing both plots
         2. Siting agreed with previous owner
            1. Purchaser could not be in better position
         3. Also drains running under both plots
            1. Could not revoke as he also benefited
      2. ER Ives Investment Ltd v High [1967]
         1. Right of way not created by deed
            1. Could not be legal easement
         2. Not registered
            1. So not protected if equitable easement
         3. Foundation encroached on neighbour's land
            1. Could not prevent using right of way while foundations remained
         4. Denning held was mutual benefit and burden
         5. Also estoppel as previous owner had acquiesed
         6. Defined equitable easement very narrowly
            1. Rights not registrable
         7. Should be protected or will not be enforceable