Errington v Wood [1951]
Share
Errington v Wood [1951] EWCA Civ 2, [1952] 1 KB 290, also called Errington v Errington, is a significant judicial decision in English contract law and land law, particularly addressing the enforceability of assurances made in the context of property transactions. This case explores the dynamics between agreement, specific performance, and the rights of individuals relying on promises related to property.
In 1936, Mr Errington purchased a house in Newcastle upon Tyne for his son and daughter-in-law. The son and daughter-in-law contributed £250, while the remaining £500 was financed through a mortgage. Mr Errington assured the couple that they could remain in the house as long as they continued paying the mortgage, and upon full repayment, the property would become theirs. Subsequently, the son left, and the daughter-in-law faced a possession claim from Mr Errington's widow.
The Court of Appeal, in a unanimous decision, rejected the claim for possession, considering the nature of the agreement and the daughter-in-law's right to stay based on the promises made by Mr Errington.
Denning LJ emphasised that the daughter-in-law's right to remain in the house was not a mere tenancy at will. He argued that the relationship between the parties was not determinable by either party on demand, a key characteristic of a tenancy at will. He also pointed out that the daughter-in-law was not a tenant at will, as Mr Errington could not eject her as long as mortgage payments were made regularly.
Denning LJ introduced the concept of a licensee with a contractual right to remain, distinct from a mere tenant. He asserted that although the daughter-in-law had exclusive possession, she was a licensee with a contractual right to stay, and her rights would mature into a good equitable title once the mortgage was paid. He rejected the idea of the daughter-in-law being a tenant at will or a tenant paying rent, as the £15 weekly payment was not obligatory and could not be considered rent. His judgment underscored the evolving understanding of exclusive possession not necessarily indicative of a tenancy, as equitable considerations and contractual rights played a crucial role in determining the nature of the occupancy.
This case is notable for its nuanced approach to the legal characterisation of occupancy rights in property transactions. The decision recognises the existence of a contractual license, distinct from a traditional tenancy, and underscores the importance of equitable considerations in determining the rights of individuals residing in a property based on promises made by the owner. The case has influenced subsequent decisions and discussions on the intersection of contract and property law, especially regarding the nature of occupiers' rights and the enforceability of assurances made in the context of familial or informal arrangements related to property.
In 1936, Mr Errington purchased a house in Newcastle upon Tyne for his son and daughter-in-law. The son and daughter-in-law contributed £250, while the remaining £500 was financed through a mortgage. Mr Errington assured the couple that they could remain in the house as long as they continued paying the mortgage, and upon full repayment, the property would become theirs. Subsequently, the son left, and the daughter-in-law faced a possession claim from Mr Errington's widow.
The Court of Appeal, in a unanimous decision, rejected the claim for possession, considering the nature of the agreement and the daughter-in-law's right to stay based on the promises made by Mr Errington.
Denning LJ emphasised that the daughter-in-law's right to remain in the house was not a mere tenancy at will. He argued that the relationship between the parties was not determinable by either party on demand, a key characteristic of a tenancy at will. He also pointed out that the daughter-in-law was not a tenant at will, as Mr Errington could not eject her as long as mortgage payments were made regularly.
Denning LJ introduced the concept of a licensee with a contractual right to remain, distinct from a mere tenant. He asserted that although the daughter-in-law had exclusive possession, she was a licensee with a contractual right to stay, and her rights would mature into a good equitable title once the mortgage was paid. He rejected the idea of the daughter-in-law being a tenant at will or a tenant paying rent, as the £15 weekly payment was not obligatory and could not be considered rent. His judgment underscored the evolving understanding of exclusive possession not necessarily indicative of a tenancy, as equitable considerations and contractual rights played a crucial role in determining the nature of the occupancy.
This case is notable for its nuanced approach to the legal characterisation of occupancy rights in property transactions. The decision recognises the existence of a contractual license, distinct from a traditional tenancy, and underscores the importance of equitable considerations in determining the rights of individuals residing in a property based on promises made by the owner. The case has influenced subsequent decisions and discussions on the intersection of contract and property law, especially regarding the nature of occupiers' rights and the enforceability of assurances made in the context of familial or informal arrangements related to property.
