Hannaford v Selby (1976) 239 E.G. 811
Trust – Beneficial Interest – Common Intention – Property – Repossession – Licensee – Notice – Reasonable Time
Facts
The defendants, the Selby family, were the parents of the complainant, Mrs Hannaford. The Hannaford family bought property in their own name and used the money from selling their former home. The complainant came to an agreement with her parents that they could live with her and her family. The Selbys did not contribute to the purchase price of the property, but they did pay £5 per week into the family kitty and helped with household expenses. They left their council house to move in. Mr Selby used the garden to grow his vegetables. The complainant sought repossession of the property after relationships broke down.
Issues
The issue in this case was whether the defendants had a beneficial interest in the property in light of their repeat contributions to the household and family kitty, as well as growing vegetables in the garden.
Decision/Outcome
It was held that the defendants were not entitled to reside in the property. The Selbys were classed as ‘bare licensees’ as there was no intention to create legal obligations with the complainants when they moved in. It would not matter if the party had made financial contributions nor were the vegetables seen as a ‘detriment’ that would create beneficial interest in the property. However, the defendants were entitled to reasonable notice and a reasonable chance to find other accommodation. The court stated that ‘reasonable time’ could be as much as six months, depending on the circumstances.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary remains legally accurate as a statement of the principles applied in Hannaford v Selby (1976) 239 E.G. 811. The core holdings — that informal family arrangements may create a bare licence rather than a beneficial interest, that financial contributions alone do not necessarily establish a constructive trust or proprietary estoppel claim, and that a bare licensee is entitled to reasonable notice before repossession — remain good law. However, readers should be aware of important subsequent developments in this area. The law on constructive trusts and common intention has been substantially developed by cases such as Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset [1991] 1 AC 107, Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17, and Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53. The approach to proprietary estoppel has also been refined by Thorner v Major [2009] UKHL 18. These later authorities mean that, while Hannaford v Selby correctly illustrates the bare licence concept and the reasonable notice principle, it should not be read in isolation when considering whether contributions give rise to a beneficial interest under modern law. The reasonable notice principle for bare licensees remains applicable, though what constitutes reasonable notice depends heavily on the facts of each case.
