Canadian Railway Co v The King [1931] UKPC 18
Circumstances where a licence will be implied and whether such a licence is revocable
Facts
The appellant had erected some five hundred miles of telegraph poles and wires along a roadway and along two branch lines, the land upon which they were erected being the property of the Crown. Some of the poles were erected between 1905 and 1910 and no express consent was given to their erection. Other poles were erected between 1893 and 1911 during the course of negotiations, although no agreement was ever reached. The Crown commenced proceedings alleging trespass and seeking damages or alternatively a declaration as to the appellant’s rights. The Supreme Court of Canada found in favour of the Crown and the appellant appealed to the Privy Council.
Issues
The primary issue in this context was whether any of the actions of the Crown suggested that the appellant’s poles were on the land under licence and, if so, whether the licence could be revoked.
Decision/Outcome
It was held that on these facts the poles were on the land with the licence of the Crown. Although when first erecting the poles the appellant had been a trespasser, the length of acquiescence on the part of the Crown and an indication that rent had been paid meant that the Crown lost its right to assert that there was no licence. This licence was however revocable unless evidence could be produced to demonstrate that it was not. Given that there was no evidence of this type the Crown could revoke the licence but only by giving notice to the appellant and by specifying a future date for revocation which would be sufficient to allow the appellant to remove the poles and wires and erect them elsewhere.
Updated 21 March 2026
This article accurately summarises the Privy Council decision in Canadian Railway Co v The King [1931] UKPC 18. The legal principles discussed — implied licences arising from acquiescence, the revocability of bare licences, and the requirement of reasonable notice before revocation — remain part of established common law and have not been displaced by subsequent legislation or overruled by later authority. However, readers should note that this is a Privy Council decision from 1931 concerning Canadian Crown land, and its direct application in modern English and Welsh land law is limited. Subsequent domestic case law and statute, including the Land Registration Act 2002 in relation to registered land, govern many questions about rights over land in England and Wales today. The article remains a useful illustration of foundational licence principles but should not be read in isolation from the broader modern land law framework.
