Hounslow LBC v Twickenham Garden Developments [1971] Ch 233

• Plaintiff contracted with Defendant for Defendant to build on Plaintiff’s site. There was a clause that if Plaintiff had served notice that Defendant’s work was not progressing adequately, and this was not served unreasonably, Plaintiff would be entitled to determine the contract after 14 days of the notice being served.

• The notice was served but after 14 days Defendant refused to vacate the premises. Plaintiff sued for an injunction.

• Megarry J held that Defendant’s licence to remain was a contractual one, due to last for a specified period. Unless the contract had been validly “determined” by Plaintiff, the court would not grant an injunction since this would be to aid a wrongful repudiation of contract.

  • In this case, Plaintiff failed to show that Defendant had breached the contract and therefore was not entitled to determine (i.e. terminate) the contract.

  • Therefore the license would not be ended (by injunction). 

Megarry J

• Cites dicta of Lord Porter and Lord Uthwatt (above) in support off his contention that injunctions will not be granted to end contractual licenses where this will help a wrongful repudiation of a contract. 

• He summarises as follows: 

  1. A licence to enter land is a contractual licence if it is conferred by a contract; it is immaterial whether the right to enter the land is the primary purpose of the contract or is merely secondary.

  2. A contractual licence is not an entity distinct from the contract which brings it into being, but merely one of the provisions of that contract.

  3. The willingness of the court to grant equitable remedies in order to enforce or support a contractual licence depends on whether or not the licence is specifically enforceable.

  4. But even if a contractual licence is not specifically enforceable, the court will not grant equitable remedies in order to procure or aid a breach of the licence.