Hounslow LBC v Twickenham Garden Developments Ltd [1971] Ch 233
Implied duty not to revoke a contractual licence during the contractual period.
Facts:
The plaintiff council, the London Borough of Hounslow, entered into a contract with the defendant builders for the construction of dwellings. The defendants were given possession of the construction site for four years. The plaintiff’s architect was not satisfied with how work was progressing so the council gave notice to the defendants terminating their employment. The builders declared that the council’s actions were invalid under the contract and carried on with the work in accordance with the contract. The council sought to obtain possession of the site and sued for trespass.
Issues:
The defendants argued that they had a licence to remain on the land that was independent of the contractual position. They also argued that the contract had not been validly terminated by the plaintiffs as the plaintiffs had not complied with the requirements of natural justice by not giving the defendants an opportunity to be heard.
Held:
The court refused to grant the council relief. The licence was a contractual licence. Following Hurst v Picture Theatres Ltd [1915] 1 KB 1 the court held that in such a contract there is an implied duty by the plaintiff not to revoke the licence while the contractual period is in force. It did not matter that the right to enter the land was only secondary to the contract. Natural justice did not apply to the notice periods under the contract. However, on the facts the plaintiff had not shown that the contract had been validly terminated.
Updated 21 March 2026
This case summary remains broadly accurate as a description of the 1971 decision and the legal principles it established. The core holding — that a contractual licence carries an implied term not to revoke it during the contractual period, following Hurst v Picture Theatres Ltd [1915] 1 KB 1 — continues to be cited in land law and contract law as good authority for that proposition.
Readers should note, however, that the broader law of contractual licences has developed significantly since 1971. In particular, the Court of Appeal in Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold [1989] Ch 1 declined to follow the suggestion in some earlier cases (including reasoning associated with this period) that contractual licences could bind third parties or create interests in land, affirming that a contractual licence does not of itself create a proprietary interest. This limits the significance of the contractual licence doctrine in a property law context, though the personal contractual obligations between the original parties — as at issue in this case — remain enforceable. Students should read this case in that wider context.
