Students: Chapter 9
Welcome to the Student Resources for Chapter 9 of Modern Land Law. Here you will be able to practice your exam technique with a set of essay questions; check your understanding of what land law is with our multiple-choice quiz and short-answer questions; test yourself on your knowledge of the key statutes and case law; and listen to a short lecture podcast on the latest developments within land law.
Click on the tabs below to view the resources:
Essay questions
Question 1
In 2008 Nestor, the registered proprietor of No. 10 Labyrinth Lane, started letting Oscar live in the house whilst he occupied No. 15 in connection with his work. There was no formal arrangement between them but Nestor promised Oscar that he didn’t need to worry about saving up to buy his own house because Nestor ‘would not let Oscar down and would make sure he had a home’. Oscar slowly started to do up No. 10 and Nestor happily stood back and allowed him to do this. In total, Oscar spent £50,000 doing up the property to a very personal design. In doing so he spent his savings which he had previously thought to use as a deposit on the house.
In late 2010 Nestor sold the freehold title of No. 10 to Poppy. Nestor had asked Oscar to make sure that he was not in the house when Poppy came to visit. Oscar went away for the weekend and Nestor hid some of Oscar’s things. He did not however move the things in the bathrooms claiming that they were his own and that no one else had any interest in the property. Poppy was satisfied with this and did not make any further enquiries. She purchased the freehold property.
Poppy has now discovered that Oscar wishes to live in the property still and that he is claiming that Nestor promised him an interest in the property.
Advise Poppy on the likelihood that she will have to give effect to any right which Oscar may have.
Question 2
Should contractual licences ever be considered property rights?
Question 3
‘I should say at once that the respondents to the appeal did not contend that this House’s decision in Cobbe v. Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd [2008] UKHL 55; [2008] 1 WLR 1752 (“Cobbe”) has severely curtailed, or even virtually extinguished, the doctrine of proprietary estoppel (a rather apocalyptic view that has been suggested by some commentators)’. Lord Walker, Thorner v. Majors [2009] UKHL 18 at para. 31. Discuss.
True/False Quiz
With the exception of the first three questions, answer the questions below based on the facts of this short scenario. A, the proprietor of No. 1 Main Street, agreed with B that B could enter his land in order for B's children to play on A's land. B's children were playing on the land when C came to look round. A sold the property to C and B now wishes for his children to be able to play on C's land as before. A had also entered into a written agreement with D that D could use one of A's garages to store some of his things in from time to time in return for £50 a month. The agreement was to last for 20 years. D wants to continue this arrangement with C and believes that he is entitled to.
You answered the following questions incorrectly:
- Question of
Statute Quiz
Here you should outline the main effect, role, etc. of the provisions below. This is designed as a guide to the most important provisions, and as a means to improve your recall of the statutory provisions.
Case Law Quiz
Here you should attempt in one or two sentences to outline the main points to be taken from these cases and also three or four key words with their subject matter. This should assist in revision.
Short Answer Questions
Podcasts
Stopped:
00:00
/
00:00
Podcast Script
This podcast discusses licences and looks at bare licences; contractual licences; licences coupled with a grant; and estoppel licences.
In the previous podcast in this series we looked at Sections 78 and 79 LPA 1925 in relation to restrictive covenants. In this podcast we will be discussing licences. In particular, we will be looking at the different types of licences. For the rules relating to estoppel, see Chapter 9. This chapter also discusses the constructive trust which can arise if a purchaser takes land expressly subject to a licence.
Licences are permissions to be on land. They are, at their root, the permission that turns a visitor to land from a trespasser into a legitimate visitor. Licences are personal rights. In fact, asking whether licences are proprietary is a contradictory question. Understanding the different types of licence should help make this clear. These are:
- Bare licence;
- Contractual licence;
- Licence coupled with a grant.
We will also discuss so-called estoppel licences, which are not really a separate type of licence.
Bare licences
A bare licence is a mere permission to be on land that is not supported by a contract for example. The shopper in a supermarket has a bare licence to be there, as does the university student in the library. This can be terminated by the licensor on reasonable notice.
Contractual licence
Here, the permission is granted in return for valuable consideration. These are based on contracts, and as such are governed by the ordinary rules on contract. Both the licensor and the licensee can rely on remedies for breach of contract. Sometimes injunctions or an order for specific performance may be granted. In particular, injunctions can be used to prevent a licensor revoking the licence early. This means that as between the original parties the licence may be irrevocable but this has no impact on third parties. The licensor is bound by his contractual promise. This has nothing to do with property rights.
Licences coupled with a grant
This category covers permissions to be on land where the permission is required to allow the licensee to benefit from an interest in land that has been granted to them. For example, a person who is granted the right to collect fish from a stream on another's land needs permission to get to that stream. This permission, to access the stream, is a licence, and it attaches to the profit à prendre, that is, the right to fish in the stream. This licence appears to be proprietary, but the important thing to remember is that this licence has no existence independent of the profit and cannot bind anyone other than the licensor if the profit no longer exists. It has no proprietary existence of its own.
Estoppel licences
There is not really a single entity that can be referred to as an estoppel licence. Instead this term could be used to cover many different things, but it is not a helpful label. Of course, a court could grant a licence as the remedy arising from an estoppel. A person with the benefit of an estoppel may also, and separately from the circumstances giving rise to an estoppel, have a permission to be on the land. But there is no such thing as a licence protected by estoppel such that the licence itself takes on the proprietary nature of the estoppel.
And so we can see that all licences, necessarily, are personal rights and cannot have a proprietary existence of their own. What can however exist, is a constructive trust that arises when a purchaser, on taking land, over which there is a licence, promises to give effect to that licence. In such cases, as can be seen from Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold, a constructive trust may arise which will bind the purchaser personally.
In the next podcast we will be looking at mortgages and the powers of the mortgagee under Sections 101-104 Law of Property Act 1925 in particular. Today's key concepts- bare licences, contractual licences, licences coupled with a grant and estoppel licences.