How Are Licences Defined in Thomas V. Sorrell

Question

Examlex · Accepted Answer

The Answer is In the case of Thomas v. Sorrell (1673), a distinction was made between a "licence to use" and a "licence to prohibit others from using." This case is often cited in discussions of English common law regarding licenses.

The case involved the legality of a royal grant that gave the plaintiff, Thomas, the exclusive right to license victuallers (those who sell food and drink) in the county of Surrey. Sorrell, the defendant, argued that the grant was a monopoly and thus illegal. The court had to consider whether the grant was merely a license to use, which would be a personal privilege to do something on another's land, or whether it was a license coupled with an interest, which would give the holder a right to enforce the license against others.

Chief Justice Vaughan, in his ruling, made a distinction between a bare license and a license coupled with an interest. A bare license, he explained, is revocable and does not confer any estate or interest in the property. It is simply a permission to do something that would otherwise be illegal, such as crossing someone's land. On the other hand, a license coupled with an interest is irrevocable and does confer an interest in the property. It is tied to an interest in some property or contract and cannot be revoked at will.

The ruling in Thomas v. Sorrell is significant because it established that while a license by itself does not create an interest in property, when it is coupled with an interest, it becomes a legal right that can be enforced. This distinction is still relevant in modern law when determining the rights and obligations associated with licenses.

How Are Licences Defined in Thomas V. Sorrell

Definitions: