Vaughan v Vaughan [1953] 1 QB 762

Facts

• A married couple separated, leading to divorce on the grounds of the husband's adultery.
• After the husband left the matrimonial home, the wife remained in occupation of the property.
• The husband had told the wife she could “always live there,” upon his departure.
• The wife claimed this statement granted her an irrevocable license to reside in the home for life.
• The County Court upheld the wife’s claim, finding her license irrevocable under common law.
• The husband appealed, arguing that any license granted was revocable as there was no consideration or formal contract.

Issues

1. Whether the wife's continued occupation of the matrimonial home after divorce constituted an irrevocable license or merely a bare license.
2. Whether a statement by the husband, absent contractual intention or consideration, could create a legally binding right for the wife to occupy the property.
3. Whether the lower court was correct in holding the wife's license to occupy as irrevocable.

Decision

• The Court of Appeal overturned the County Court’s decision and held that the wife's license was a bare license and therefore revocable.
• The statement that the wife could always live there was interpreted as permission only, lacking the elements of a binding contract.
• The court clarified that only a license supported by contract or consideration could be irrevocable or enforceable.
• The wife had no continuing legal right to occupy the property after revocation of the license.
• The court drew a distinction between personal permission (a bare license) and a contractual right or interest in land.

Legal Principles

• A bare license grants a personal right to occupy or access land, but is revocable at the will of the landowner.
• Without contractual intention and consideration, promises regarding occupancy do not confer an enforceable right.
• Bare licenses, as distinct from contractual or proprietary rights, do not pass an interest in land and provide limited protection to licensees.
• Previous case law such as Thomas v Sorrell (1673), Winter Garden Theatre v Millennium Productions [1948] AC 173, and Errington v Errington [1952] 1 KB 290 were referenced to clarify distinctions between licenses and property rights.
• The concept of license “coupled with a grant” contrasts with a bare license; only the former involves transfer of a property interest.
• Comparisons were drawn with contractual doctrines and multi-occupancy scenarios, emphasizing that mere permission absent a contract offers no assured right of occupation.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Vaughan v Vaughan established that a bare license, without consideration or contractual obligation, is revocable at will by the grantor and does not create a legally protected right to occupy property. The case highlights the importance of formal contracts for securing occupancy rights and distinguishes permissive occupancy from proprietary or contractual interests in land.