Chapter 3 Quiz:
1 What was the result of the facts in Errington v Errington & Woods [1952] 1 KB 290 according to
Denning LJ?
a) The freeholder was estopped from evicting the occupier.
b) The occupier had a simple contractual right to occupy.
c) The occupier had a contractual right to occupy that could only be revoked in certain
circumstances.
d) The occupier had a limited form of tenancy.
e) The occupier had no right to remain in the house.
[Answer guide]
See Land Law, Section 3.5.3. Similar facts would almost certainly now be held to give
rise to a proprietary estoppel (see Land Law, Section 14.4).
Answer: c
2 True or false: a contractual licence is always less valuable to the licensee than a lease?
a) True.
b) False.
[Answer guide]
An unusual example of where a licence was more valuable to the licensee was Wettern
Electric Ltd v Welsh Development Agency [1983] 1 QB 796 (see Land Law, Section 3.5.1).
Answer: b
3 Why did the court refuse to allow the licensor to revoke the contractual licence in Verrall v Great
Yarmouth BC [1981] QB 202?
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
The licence was protected by an estoppel.
The licence was coupled with an interest.
The circumstances fell within the scope of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977.
Damages would not provide a sufficient remedy.
The licensee was an innocent third party.
[Answer guide]
See Land Law, Section 3.5.2.
Answer: d
4 In what circumstances can an irrevocable contractual licence bind a purchaser of the land from
the original licensor?
a) Such a licence will always bind the purchaser of the land.
b) Such a licence will bind a purchaser of the land when the sale is made expressly subject to
it.
c) Such a licence will bind the purchaser if there is sufficient justification for imposing a
constructive trust.
d) Such a licence will bind a purchaser who is not a bona fide purchaser for value without
notice.
Davys, Land Law
Document1
Page 1 of 2
[Answer guide]
The key case is Ashburn Anstalt v WJ Arnold & Co [1989] Ch 1; see Land Law, Sections
3.5.3 and 3.7.
Answer: c
5 When is a licence by estoppel most likely to bind a purchaser of registered land?
a) The licensee was in actual occupation of the land at the date of purchase.
b) The purchaser had notice of the equity at the date of purchase.
c) A licence by estoppel can never bind a third party.
[Answer guide]
See section 116 and Schedules 1 and 3 of the LRA 2002 (Land Law, Sections 3.6.2 and
15.8.2a). If title to the land is unregistered at the date of purchase, the doctrine of notice
applies (see Land Law, Section 16.2.2).
Answer: a
Davys, Land Law
Document1
Page 2 of 2