Binion v Evans [1972] Ch. 359
LAND LAW – CONTRACTUAL LICENSES – ENFORCEABILITY AGAINST SUCCESSORS IN TITLE – CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTS
Facts
The defendants promised the sellers of land that they would permit the claimant to continue living in one of the cottages for the remainder of her life. In exchange for this promise, they received a significant discount on the price. The claimant had a mere license to remain on the land. The defendants later sought to evict her.
Issues
Personal rights are generally not enforceable against third-parties, in contrast to proprietary rights, which can be enforced against successors-in-title provided certain requirements are met. A contractual license is a form of personal, non-proprietary interest. Constructive trusts, by contrast, are proprietary interests that arise where the trustee has behaved in a manner such that it would be unconscionable to allow him to insist on his strict legal rights.
The issue in this case was whether the claimant could assert her contractual license to remain on the land against the defendants, who were not a party to that license: either by virtue of the license or because a constructive trust had arisen.
Decision/Outcome
The Court of Appeal held that by promising to allow the claimant to remain in the home in exchange for the significant discount, the defendants had caused a constructive trust to arise. In these circumstances, it would be unconscionable for the court to allow the defendants to rely on their strict legal right to evict her.
The Court also implied that a contractual license could itself be an enforceable equitable interest. However, this point is likely not good law, due to the decision of the House of Lords in National Provincial Bank v Ainsworth, which held that licenses are non-proprietary and therefore cannot bind third parties in and of themselves.
Updated 15 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in Binion v Evans [1972] Ch 359 and the legal principles it established. The article correctly identifies the constructive trust reasoning as the sound basis for the decision and appropriately flags that any suggestion in the judgment that a contractual licence could itself bind third parties as an equitable interest is not good law, citing National Provincial Bank v Ainsworth [1965] AC 1175.
This position remains good law. Subsequent cases, including Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold [1989] Ch 1, confirmed that contractual licences do not of themselves create proprietary interests capable of binding successors in title, while also affirming that a constructive trust may arise on facts similar to those in Binion v Evans where it would be unconscionable to deny the licensee’s right to remain. There have been no statutory developments or later House of Lords or Supreme Court decisions that materially alter the analysis set out in this article. The summary can be read with confidence, subject to the caveat that the constructive trust jurisdiction in this area involves a fact-sensitive assessment and the precise boundaries of when such a trust arises remain subject to ongoing academic and judicial discussion.
