Possessory Right over land vs. Proprietary Interest in land
<p>What are the differences between &quot;Possessory Right&quot; and &quot;Proprietary Interest&quot;? The following quotation refers to <em>Vauxhall Motors Ltd v Manchester Ship Canal Co Ltd</em> [2019] UKSC 46. Let me know if you want me to quote the whole paragraph from the book.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Lord Briggs, speaking
for the majority of the Supreme Court, stated that the remedy of relief from forfeiture
‘plays a valuable role in preventing the unconscionable abuse of strict legal rights for purposes
other than those for which they were conferred’,9 such as security for payment of
money due. He went on to emphasize, however, that the remedy ‘needs to be constrained
with principled boundaries, so that the admirable certainty of English law in the fields of
business and property is not undermined by an uncontrolled intervention of equity in any
situation regarded by a judge as unconscionable’.<sup>10</sup> The Supreme Court in that case was
willing to expand the ambit of the equitable remedy of relief from forfeiture to include
the forfeiture of <strong>possessory rights</strong> over land, so including forfeiture of a licence to use the
defendant’s land, whereas previously the remedy had only been available in respect of <em><strong>proprietary
interests</strong></em> in land, although it was available in respect of possessory rights to chattels.
This expansion of the ambit of the remedy was defended specifically on the ground
that this was a principled extension of the law which operated within clear boundaries
and so was sufficiently certain.<sup>11</sup></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Virgo, <em>The Principles of Equity &amp; Trusts</em> 2020 4th edn. Page 5.</p>

<p>The quotation really answers the question.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>the forfeiture of possessory rights over land, so including forfeiture
of a licence to use the defendant’s land, whereas previously the
remedy had only been available in respect of proprietary interests in
land, although it was available in respect of possessory rights to
chattels.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>A possessory right over land is the right to use land, including rights to use land that do not arise from fee simple ownership of the land, such as revocable permission from an owner of the land to use it (which is called a &quot;license&quot;), or a right to use land pursuant to an easement.</p>

<p>Various rights in land can exist. The Common Law has traditionally drawn a distinction between rights which are property rights and lesser rights which are merely possessory.</p>
<p>Property rights in land include owning the freehold (fee simple) which really means absolute ownership, but a right to possess the land for a fixed term (lease) is also a property right.</p>
<p>At the bottom of the &quot;pecking order&quot; are licences which give limited rights over land but are not considered property rights - e.g. if you pay the entrance fee to go into a museum you have a right to be there but you have no proprietary right in the building.</p>
<p>As you can imagine a licence being a contract there are all kinds of possible terms which the parties might agree to in a licence some of which come close to (but do not quite reach) being property rights. <a href="https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2018-0116.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Vauxhall Motors Ltd v Manchester Ship Canal Co</em></a> concerned a licence to build and use pipes under the defendant's property.</p>
<p>Where the law draws a line between a proprietary right and a mere possessory right has changed over time. In the early Middle Ages, for example, even leases were not considered to be property rights.</p>
<p>What the passage is saying is that previously the remedy of relief from forfeiture was only available where there was a property right but now it is available more widely including some cases where there is only a licence.</p>

england-and-wales legal-terms