The case King v David Allen & Sons Billposting Ltd [1916] deals with the distinction between a license and an interest in land, holding that a license is only a personal right and does not bind third parties.

Case Name: King v David Allen & Sons Billposting Ltd

• Court: House of Lords (UK), 1916
• Citation: [1916] 2 AC 54; [1916] UKHL 1
• Date: 14 February 1916
• Judges (Law Lords): Lord Buckmaster (Lord Chancellor), Earl Loreburn and Lord Atkinson
• Area of Law: Property Law, Proprietary Rights vs Contractual Rights

Facts of the Case (King v David Allen & Sons Billposting Ltd)

Mr. King owned land where a picture palace (cinema) was going to be built.

Before the cinema was built, he made a contract with David Allen & Sons (a billposting/advertising company). In this contract, King gave them permission to put posters on one wall of the cinema for 4 years, in return for payment.

Later, King leased the land and building to a cinema company, but this lease did not mention David Allen & Sons’ advertising right.

The cinema company refused to allow David Allen & Sons to put up posters.

So, David Allen & Sons could not use the wall, even though they had an agreement with King.

Legal Issue

Did the contract give David Allen & Sons an actual interest in land (like a lease or easement) that would bind the new tenant?

Decision in King v David Allen & Sons Billposting Ltd

The Court held that the contract was only a license — a personal/contractual right, not a proprietary right. It did not create a lease or easement (no legal interest in the wall).

So, it did not bind the new cinema company.

However, King had promised to give the advertising space. By leasing the property without protecting that right, he made it impossible for the poster company to use the wall.

Therefore, King breached the contract. He had to pay damages to David Allen & Sons.

Key Principle (What the Case Is Known For)

A license is only a personal right. It does not create an interest in land and does not bind future owners or tenants. If the licensor later makes it impossible to honour the license, this amounts to a breach of contract, for which the licensor is personally liable in damages.

References:

https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKHL/1916/1.html

---

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

MORE FROM PROPERTY LAW:

• Break Fast Investments v PCH Melbourne (2007): Property Rights
• Perry v Clissold (1906): Property Disputes in Australia
• Jeffries v The Great Western Railway (1856): Jus Tertii Defence