Cowell v Rosehill Racecourse Co Ltd (1937) 56 CLR 305
The revocability of a contractual licence
Facts
The appellant brought an action against the respondent for damages for assault at common law. The respondent stated that the appellant was trespassing on his land. The respondent, through his agents requested that the appellant leave the land and the appellant refused to leave. At this point the respondent’s agents forcibly removed the appellant from the land and it was this which it was argued constituted the assault. The appellant stated that the respondent was carrying out horseracing on the land and that the respondent had informed him that if the appellant paid to the respondent four shillings, he would be allowed to remain on the property to watch the races. The appellant paid four shillings to the respondent and stated that in seeking to removing from the land the respondent was in breach of the contractual licence that was in place. In other words, it was not possible to revoke a licence which was contractual.
Issues
The issue in this circumstance was whether a licence which was contractual in nature could be revoked.
Decision/Outcome
It was held that a licence, although it had been paid for by the appellant did not create any proprietary interest. It did create a contractual right; however, this was revocable at common law and the respondent was not prevented by equity from revoking the licence or relying on the revocation. The result was that the licence was revoked before the alleged assault and therefore, the appellant’s appeal failed.
Updated 21 March 2026
This article accurately summarises the decision in Cowell v Rosehill Racecourse Co Ltd (1937) 56 CLR 605, a High Court of Australia authority on the revocability of contractual licences. The core legal principle established in this case — that a contractual licence does not confer a proprietary interest in land and remains revocable at common law, with breach sounding only in damages — remains a recognised part of the academic discussion of licence law in England and Wales. It is frequently cited alongside English authorities such as Wood v Leadbitter (1845) and Hurst v Picture Theatres Ltd [1915] 1 KB 1, which represent the competing positions in this area. Readers should note that English courts have subsequently developed the law of licences considerably, particularly through the equitable intervention recognised in cases such as Hounslow LBC v Twickenham Garden Developments Ltd [1971] Ch 233 and through the doctrine of proprietary estoppel. The article does not address those later developments, but as a summary of this specific case and the narrow principle it established, it remains accurate. One minor factual point: the neutral citation for the case is commonly given as (1937) 56 CLR 605, not 305 as stated in the article heading; readers should verify the correct citation when relying on it.
