ABSTRACT
Licences then, involve a permission from the owner of land, given to another, to use that land for some purpose. This can be to do anything from attending a cinema, parking a car or occupying premises to erecting an advertising hoarding. The range of activities that can be covered by a licence are, indeed, virtually limitless and we have already explored this issue in one respect in considering the distinction between leases and licences. Crucially, however, the orthodox view of licences is that they are not proprietary in nature: in other words, they are not interests in land, but rather personal rights over land. As a consequence, the right conferred by a licence can be enforced only against the person who created it. It does not run with the land and, unlike easements and restrictive covenants, cannot be enforced against a purchaser of the land over which the licence exists. The licence is a matter of contract, not property law. In the 1970s, this fundamental theoretical distinction was attacked (although it has been reaffirmed a number of times: Lloyd v Dugdale (2002))
and many examination questions now ask students to analyse whether the status of licences has changed over the years as the use of land has changed. In dealing with both problem and essay questions on licences, students will need to have a firm grasp of what it means to say that something is an interest in land, as well as an understanding of the law of easements and general principles of equity concerning constructive trusts. Case law is particularly important.
