Hurst v. Picture Theatres Ltd.

Facts

The plaintiff paid for and purchased a ticket to see a cinema show at the defendants' theatre. He was wrongly suspected of having entered without a ticket and asked to leave; on refusing, the defendants' gatekeeper physically lifted him out of his seat, after which he walked out. He sued for assault and false imprisonment.

Issues

• Whether the licence to view the performance was revocable at will
• Whether the plaintiff became a trespasser so that his ejection was lawful

Arguments

The plaintiff argued he held a licence coupled with a grant (a contractual right to see the whole performance) which could not be revoked, so his removal was an actionable assault. The defendants argued the licence was revocable, making the plaintiff a trespasser whom they could eject.

Held

The Court of Appeal held that the ticket gave the plaintiff a licence coupled with a grant - the right to see the spectacle from beginning to end - and that such a licence, supported by consideration, could not be lawfully revoked during the performance. The revocation was therefore invalid, the plaintiff did not become a trespasser, and his forcible removal was a tortious assault. The plaintiff was entitled to substantial compensation. The decision rendered the contrary rule in Wood v. Leadbitter obsolete.

Ratio decidendi

A licence coupled with a grant, given for value, is irrevocable for the duration of the grant; ejecting such a licensee is an assault because he is not a trespasser.

Significance

Leading authority distinguishing a bare licence (revocable) from a licence coupled with a grant (irrevocable); supersedes Wood v. Leadbitter and was approved by the House of Lords in Winter Garden Theatre Ltd. v. Millennium Productions Ltd.

Related