Errington v Errington, [1952] 1 KB 290

Can You Answer This?

Practice with real exam questions

Miriam invests in a property and offers it to her cousin Leo if he continues to pay off the remaining mortgage on the property. She tells him that once the mortgage is fully paid, she will transfer the title to him outright. Over the course of several years, Leo diligently makes each monthly payment, relying on Miriam’s promise. However, halfway through the mortgage term, Miriam decides to revoke her offer and attempts to reclaim the property, alleging the absence of a formal lease. Leo challenges Miriam’s action, asserting that their arrangement granted him a legally enforceable right to remain until the mortgage is fully paid.


Which of the following is the single best explanation of the legal principle that applies to these facts?

Introduction

The case of Errington v Errington [1952] 1 KB 290 is a landmark decision in English property law, particularly concerning the nature of licences and their enforceability. The Court of Appeal addressed whether a licence granted by a father to his son and daughter-in-law, conditional upon the completion of mortgage payments, created a binding contractual obligation or a mere personal privilege. The judgment clarified the distinction between contractual licences and bare licences, emphasizing the role of consideration in determining enforceability.

At its core, the case revolves around the principle that a licence, when supported by ongoing payments or other forms of consideration, may acquire the characteristics of a contractual right rather than a revocable permission. This distinction is critical in property law, as it affects the rights of licensees and the obligations of licensors. The court held that the son and daughter-in-law, by making regular mortgage payments, had provided sufficient consideration to transform the licence into a binding contractual arrangement, thereby preventing the licensor from revoking it unilaterally.

The judgment also highlighted the importance of intention in creating enforceable rights. The court examined the factual matrix, including the parties' conduct and the terms of the arrangement, to ascertain whether the licence was intended to confer a legal right. This case remains a foundational authority for understanding the interplay between licences, contracts, and property rights.

Legal Principles in Errington v Errington

1. Definition and Nature of a Licence

A licence, in property law, is a permission granted by a licensor to a licensee to use land in a manner that would otherwise constitute a trespass. Unlike a lease, which grants an interest in land, a licence is a personal right and does not create a proprietary interest. Licences can be categorized into bare licences, contractual licences, and licences coupled with an interest.

In Errington v Errington, the court focused on contractual licences, which arise when the permission to use land is supported by consideration. The presence of consideration distinguishes contractual licences from bare licences, which are revocable at will. The court held that the son and daughter-in-law's regular mortgage payments constituted sufficient consideration to create a contractual licence.

2. Consideration and Enforceability

Consideration is a fundamental element of contract law, requiring each party to provide something of value in exchange for the other party's promise. In the context of licences, consideration transforms a bare licence into a contractual licence, making it enforceable against the licensor.

The court in Errington v Errington emphasized that the son and daughter-in-law's mortgage payments were not merely acts of generosity but constituted valuable consideration. This consideration created a binding obligation on the licensor, preventing him from revoking the licence without cause. The judgment reinforced the principle that contractual licences, supported by consideration, are enforceable in equity.

3. Intention to Create Legal Relations

The enforceability of a contractual licence also depends on the parties' intention to create legal relations. The court examined the circumstances surrounding the arrangement, including the father's promise to transfer the property upon completion of mortgage payments and the son and daughter-in-law's reliance on this promise.

The court found that the parties intended the licence to confer a legal right, as evidenced by their conduct and the terms of the agreement. This intention, coupled with the provision of consideration, established the licence as a binding contractual arrangement.

Application of the Judgment

1. Impact on Property Law

The judgment in Errington v Errington has had a lasting impact on property law, particularly in cases involving licences and their enforceability. The case established that a licence supported by consideration can create enforceable rights, even in the absence of a formal lease or proprietary interest.

This principle has been applied in subsequent cases involving family arrangements, where informal agreements are often made without the formalities of a lease. The judgment provides a framework for determining whether such arrangements create binding obligations, based on the presence of consideration and the parties' intention.

2. Relevance to Family Arrangements

The case is particularly relevant in the context of family arrangements, where informal agreements are common. The court's emphasis on the factual matrix and the parties' conduct provides guidance for determining the enforceability of such arrangements.

For example, in cases where a parent allows a child to live in a property in exchange for contributions to household expenses, the court may apply the principles from Errington v Errington to determine whether the arrangement creates a contractual licence. The judgment highlights the importance of documenting such agreements to avoid disputes over enforceability.

3. Comparison with Other Jurisdictions

The principles established in Errington v Errington have influenced property law in other common law jurisdictions. For instance, courts in Australia and Canada have cited the case in determining the enforceability of contractual licences.

However, the application of these principles may vary depending on the jurisdiction's legal framework. For example, some jurisdictions may require additional formalities, such as writing, to enforce a contractual licence. The judgment in Errington v Errington provides a foundational reference for comparative analysis of property law principles.

Case Study: Subsequent Applications

1. Tanner v Tanner [1975] 1 WLR 1346

In Tanner v Tanner, the Court of Appeal applied the principles from Errington v Errington to determine the enforceability of a licence granted to a cohabiting partner. The court held that the partner's contributions to the household constituted sufficient consideration to create a contractual licence, preventing the licensor from revoking it unilaterally.

This case illustrates the continued relevance of Errington v Errington in modern property law, particularly in cases involving informal family arrangements.

2. Binions v Evans [1972] Ch 359

In Binions v Evans, the court considered whether a contractual licence could bind a third party who acquired the property with notice of the licence. The court held that the licensee's rights were enforceable against the third party, based on the principles established in Errington v Errington.

This case highlights the broader implications of contractual licences, extending their enforceability beyond the original parties to the agreement.

Conclusion

The judgment in Errington v Errington [1952] 1 KB 290 remains a key part of English property law, providing a clear framework for understanding the enforceability of contractual licences. The case established that a licence supported by consideration and intended to create legal relations can confer enforceable rights, even in the absence of a formal lease or proprietary interest.

The principles from Errington v Errington have been applied in subsequent cases involving family arrangements and third-party rights, demonstrating their enduring relevance. The judgment highlights the importance of documenting informal agreements and considering the factual matrix in determining the enforceability of licences.

As property law continues to develop, the principles established in Errington v Errington will remain a foundational reference for courts and legal practitioners. The case serves as a reminder of the role of consideration and intention in creating enforceable rights, ensuring that informal arrangements receive proper examination in legal proceedings.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of December 2024. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

Practice. Learn. Excel.

Features designed to support your job and test preparation

Question Bank

Access 100,000+ questions that adapt to your performance level and learning style.

Performance Analytics

Track your progress across topics and identify knowledge gaps with comprehensive analytics and insights.

Multi-Assessment Support

Prepare for multiple exams simultaneously, from academic tests to professional certifications.

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal