## Facts

- A father allowed his son and daughter-in-law to occupy a house, promising to transfer it to them if they completed the mortgage payments.
- The son and daughter-in-law made regular payments towards the mortgage as consideration.
- The arrangement was informal and not implemented as a formal lease.
- The father attempted to revoke their ability to occupy the house before the mortgage was fully paid.

## Issues

1. Whether the licence granted to the son and daughter-in-law, conditional on mortgage payments, constituted a binding contractual obligation or a mere personal privilege.
2. Whether the consideration provided by the son and daughter-in-law’s mortgage payments was sufficient to render the licence enforceable against the licensor.
3. Whether the parties intended the licence to confer legal rights and create legal relations.

## Decision

- The court held that the regular mortgage payments by the son and daughter-in-law constituted valuable consideration.
- The licence, supported by this consideration, was a contractual licence and not revocable unilaterally by the licensor.
- The court found that the surrounding circumstances indicated an intention to create legal relations and confer enforceable rights.
- The judgement clarified that contractual licences, unlike bare licences, could be enforced in equity.

## Legal Principles

- A licence is a permission to use land, revocable if bare, but potentially enforceable as a contractual licence if supported by consideration.
- Consideration distinguishes a contractual licence from a bare licence and allows for equitable enforcement.
- The intention to create legal relations is necessary for enforceability; courts will consider the factual context, parties’ conduct, and promises made.
- Contractual licences may create obligations on the licensor, especially where the licensee has relied on the promise or provided ongoing value.
- The principles in this decision apply particularly in informal family arrangements and have been considered in subsequent case law analyses.

## Conclusion

Errington v Errington established that a licence supported by consideration and intended to create legal relations may confer enforceable rights, preventing unilateral revocation. This remains a foundational authority for the distinction between contractual and bare licences in English property law.


Errington v Errington [1952] 1 KB 290