This is an extract of our Licences document, which we sell as part of our GDL Land Law Notes collection written by the top tier of Cambridge/Bpp/College Of Law students.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our GDL Land Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
These are not proprietary rights. Mere personal permission to use the land in question.
o King v David Allen  - licence to advertising company was not enforceable against the new tenants of a cinema.
Do not bind a third party, they cannot be put on the register,
cannot generate an overriding interest.
No formalities to do with their creation.
o Can arise orally, written agreement, deed, conduct.
Three Categories of Licence:
o Bare license: permission without payment, sometimes known as a gratuitous license
Terminable by the land owner on giving reasonable notice (Robson v Hallett), terminable without liability.
o License coupled with a grant: M(D calls this academic overanalysis)
The land owner might give somebody a property right,
which may require ancillary permission (e.g. access to land). License has no independent existence
Jones v Earl of Tankeville 
o Contractual license: this is where the land owner gives permission in return for contractual consideration (e.g. being in lectures, riding the tube)
The terms of this license are often established by a document. Remedies are contractual.
Some argue there is also a fourth category: estoppel license
This is an oxymoron. Historically, many cases of estoppel grew out of a license - people labelled this as estoppel licenses.
o Rather it is a proprietary right growing out of a personal right.
Personal Constructive Trusts:
o Landowner (A) sells land to P. L has a license on the land.
Here as a matter of property law this license cannot bind P.
However, if P promises A he will respect the licence and thereby gains an advantage (e.g. lower price) then equity will impose a personal constructive trust.
This is a personal equitable obligation and Z (later purchaser) will not have to respect license.
o Principle recognized in Binions v Evans . But Denning implied a much broader application.
Ashburn Anstolt v Arnold  - rejected Denning's approach, restricting the imposition to cases where the conscience of the estate owner is affected.
Fox LJ: "certainty is of prime importance."
Lloyd v Dugdale (2002), the court re-iterated that such a constructive trust could not be imposed unless there was compelling evidence that the transferee had
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our GDL Land Law Notes.