Hurst v Picture Theatres Ltd [1915] 1 KB 1
Facts
Hurst bought a ticket entitling him to attend a performance at the defendants’ theatre. Staff mistakenly believed that he had not paid and removed him from the premises. He sued for trespass to the person arising from that physical removal. The theatre argued that it could revoke his licence to be there, even if doing so breached the admission contract, and could then justify removing him. The case therefore concerned the relationship between his paid contractual entitlement to remain and the theatre’s asserted authority to terminate permission and use force.
Legal Issue
- The issue that the courts had to decide, for our purposes, was whether the contractual licence could be revoked, notwithstanding it would be a breach of contract. They had to decide this in the context of whether there was a justification for the tort they committed in removing him.
Held
The Court of Appeal upheld the ticket-holder's claim following his wrongful removal. The theatre could not justify force merely by asserting that it had revoked the permission for which he had paid, contrary to the admission contract. The claimant was entitled to remain for the performance on the facts, and the removal amounted to an unjustified trespass to the person. The reasoning concerning contractual licences should not be converted into a rule that no such licence can ever be terminated. The terms, circumstances and available remedies matter. Nor did the decision establish a proprietary interest binding every third-party owner of the premises.
⭐ Legal Principle
A venue cannot necessarily justify forcibly removing a paying patron by purporting to revoke admission in breach of contract. Hurst protected the ticket-holder on its facts; contractual licences are not universally irrevocable and do not automatically create proprietary rights.
Significance
Hurst connects contractual permission to enter land with liability for wrongful physical removal. It is therefore relevant to licences and trespass to the person. The case should not be stated as making all contractual licences permanent or binding on successors in title. Its practical lesson is narrower: a venue must establish a lawful basis for terminating the patron's entitlement and using force, rather than assuming that ownership alone supplies that justification.
Common exam questions about this case
Why could the theatre not rely simply on revoking permission?
The claimant had paid for admission and was entitled to remain under the contract on the facts. The theatre's mistaken assertion that he had not paid did not justify removal. Purporting to revoke the licence in breach of that entitlement did not supply a complete defence to the physical interference.
Are all contractual licences irrevocable?
No. Their terms may provide for termination and circumstances can justify bringing permission to an end. Hurst addresses wrongful removal contrary to the admission entitlement in that case. A blanket statement that every contractual licence can never be revoked goes beyond the decision.
Does buying a ticket give a proprietary interest in the theatre?
No. A contractual right of admission is not automatically an estate or proprietary right binding third parties. Hurst concerns enforcement of the patron's entitlement and justification for removal between the relevant parties. It should not be used to collapse the distinction between contractual licences and property rights.