Hurst v Picture Theatres Ltd
A cinema customer who had paid for a ticket had a licence coupled with an interest, so it was a battery to eject him during the film.
Facts
Mr Hurst bought a ticket to watch a film at a cinema. During the performance, the cinema manager wrongly believed that he had not paid and asked him to leave. When he refused, he was removed by force. He sued the cinema for assault and false imprisonment.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that the cinema was liable. Buckley LJ said that Mr Hurst had a licence coupled with an interest, namely the right to see the performance, which could not be revoked during the performance. Since the Judicature Acts, the court would treat the contract as specifically enforceable in equity, so the licence was irrevocable for that time. The case should be compared with Winter Garden Theatre v Millennium Productions, which focused on whether the contract allowed revocation.
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
- Errington v Errington and Woods [1952] 1 KB 290
- Facchini v Bryson [1952] 1 TLR 1386
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.
