Court: Court of Appeal
Judgment Date: 19 December 1951
Where Reported: [1952] 1 K.B. 290; [1952] 1 All E.R. 149
Legal Issues in Errington v Errington and Woods
The legal issue in Errington v Errington and Woods centred on the nature of the legal relationship between a father who purchased a house for his son and daughter-in-law and the couple.
Errington v Errington and Woods explored whether the couple were tenants or licensees and whether they had an enforceable right to occupy the house.
A crucial aspect was the distinction between a tenancy and a license in the context of property law and the implications of such a classification on the rights and obligations of the parties involved​​.
Material Facts in Errington v Errington and Woods
The father purchased a house for his recently married son and daughter-in-law. He paid a lump sum and left the balance on a mortgage, which the couple agreed to pay through weekly instalments.
The father retained the title to the house in his name and paid the rates, but promised that the house would be transferred to the couple after the final mortgage instalment was paid.
The son subsequently left his wife, and the mother-in-law sought possession of the house.
The county court judge initially dismissed the action on the grounds that the couple were tenants at will, which was later challenged on appeal​​.
Read case: Somma v Hazelhurst (1978)
Judgment in Errington v Errington and Woods
The Court of Appeal held that the son and daughter-in-law were not tenants but licensees with a personal contractual right to occupy the house as long as they paid the mortgage instalments.
This judgment recognised the couple’s right to remain in the house under the terms of a personal contract with the father.
The court dismissed the appeal, thereby preventing the mother-in-law from obtaining possession of the house​​.
The Reason for the Decision in Errington v Errington and Woods
The decision was based on the interpretation of the couple’s occupancy as a license rather than a tenancy.
The court noted that, while the couple had exclusive possession of the house, there was no intention to create a landlord-tenant relationship.
The father’s promise to transfer the house upon payment of the mortgage and to allow them to remain in possession during this period constituted a personal contract, not a property interest.
The judges emphasised the evolution of legal principles regarding licenses, noting that a licensor cannot revoke a license in breach of a contractual promise.
This case illustrated the courts’ willingness to enforce equitable rights in situations where common law might not provide relief, reflecting the importance of equitable principles in modern English law​​ – see Antoniades v Villiers (1988) and AG Securities v Vaughan (1990).
Legal Principles in Errington v Errington and Woods
Errington v Errington and Woods established important legal principles regarding the nature of property occupation and the distinction between a license and a tenancy.
The case highlighted that exclusive possession alone does not necessarily create a tenancy; instead, the intention of the parties and the nature of the agreement are crucial.
It affirmed that a personal contractual license, even without creating a property interest, can be legally enforceable, and such licenses cannot be arbitrarily revoked if there is a contractual promise to allow occupation.
This case is significant in property law for its recognition of equitable rights in occupational arrangements and for illustrating the flexibility of the English legal system in addressing unique familial property arrangements
