IDC Group Ltd v Clark: CA 2 Jul 1992

The court was asked: ‘whether a deed made between adjoining owners and expressed to ‘grant licence’ to the owners and occupiers for the time being of one property to pass over parts of the other in case of fire operated as the grant of an easement or merely as the grant of a licence.’
Held: The appeal against the finding that a mere licence had been granted, failed. The document had been drawn professionally and the choice of the word licence must be assumed to have been deliberate. No element pointed in any other direction.

Nourse, Stocker, Beldam LJJ
Gazette 26-Aug-1992, Times 23-Jul-1992, [1992] EWCA Civ 14, [1992] 49 EG 103, (1993) 65 P and CR 179
England and Wales
CitedThomas v Sorrell KBD 1674
The plaintiff said that the defendant had sold wine without paying a license fee as required under a statute creating the Company of Vintners.
Held: Vaughan CJ said: ‘every act a man is naturally enabled to do, is in it self equally good, as . .
CitedAddiscombe Garden Estates Ltd v Crabbe CA 1957
The trustees of a tennis club took possession of tennis courts and a clubhouse under a lease, and sought a new lease under the 1954 Act. The landlord said that they were only licensees and in any event were not entitled to a new lease since they . .
CitedStreet v Mountford HL 6-Mar-1985
When a licence is really a tenancy
The document signed by the occupier stated that she understood that she had been given a licence, and that she understood that she had not been granted a tenancy protected under the Rent Acts. Exclusive occupation was in fact granted.
Held: . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.262626