Errington v Errington and Woods
A contractual licence to occupy a house, under which the occupiers were paying the mortgage, could not be revoked while they kept up the payments.
Facts
A father bought a house for his son and daughter in law to live in, paying part of the price and borrowing the rest on a mortgage in his own name. He told them that if they paid the mortgage instalments, the house would be theirs when the mortgage was paid off. The couple lived in the house and paid the instalments. The father died, leaving the house to his widow. The son then left his wife, who continued to live in the house and pay the instalments, and the widow sought possession.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that the widow was not entitled to possession. Denning LJ said that the couple were licensees, but that their licence was contractual, giving them the right to remain in possession so long as they paid the instalments, and that the father's promise could not be revoked as long as they did so. The licence was binding on the widow, who was not a purchaser for value. The suggestion that a contractual licence can bind a third party was later rejected in Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold.
Related cases on leases and licences
- AG Securities v Vaughan; Antoniades v Villiers [1990] 1 AC 417
- Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold [1989] Ch 1
- Aslan v Murphy [1990] 1 WLR 766
- Berrisford v Mexfield Housing Co-operative Ltd [2011] UKSC 52, [2012] 1 AC 955
- Binions v Evans [1972] Ch 359
- Bruton v London & Quadrant Housing Trust [2000] 1 AC 406
- Facchini v Bryson [1952] 1 TLR 1386
- Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council v Monk [1992] 1 AC 478
Studying land law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
