The question of relief from forfeiture of a licence is fairly novel legal concept, which was considered in arguably one of the most landmark of the recent Supreme Court judgments affecting English property law; namely: The Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd v Vauxhall Motors Ltd [2019] UKSC 46.
In short, in the '60s Vauxhall (V) entered into a licence with The Manchester Ship Canal Company (M) allowing V to construct pipes and chambers across M's land and to drain surface water and industrial effluent into the nearby canal. V paid M £50 per year for the privilege, subject to a termination right if V did not pay this annual rent within 28 days of demand.
As a result of an administrative error in 2014, V failed to pay its rent within 28 days of demand, and M swooped in and served notice terminating the licence. By then the value of the licence had increased exponentially to be worth hundreds of thousands of pounds; and V, still requiring use of the licence, faced having to renegotiate a new licence at a much higher cost.
V requested that the High Court grant equitable relief from forfeiture, which (if you don't know) allows the court to relieve parties from terms which forfeit their rights if they operate harshly. Traditionally this type of equitable relief is only available for forfeiture of property rights in the context of land, as opposed to a right to possession under a contract or licence.
The issue was argued all the way up to the Supreme Court, where it was held that relief from forfeiture may apply to the forfeiture of possessory rights over land, in certain circumstances; and relief was granted in this case.
What possessory rights will apply for relief is dependent on the particular facts, but an important consideration in this case appears to be the extent of control that V (as licensee) had over the land. V had constructed pipes and chambers which were permanent fixtures, thereby giving V a certain degree of control over the land. By contrast, it is unlikely that the concept would apply to a car parking licence, which doesn't involve anything being affixed or permanently constructed to land.
Interestingly, even though in V and M's case the licence included a lift and shift provision for M, which would have diminished V's control over the land in question, the court still found that it had sufficient possessory rights.
Want to hear more from us? 
