Does George Protect George's Interest In The Property?

Issue
The issue here was if Paul can evict George at will in any case. That is, does George retain an interest in the property? Does George retain a legal interest or an equitable interest? Or is George a licencee at best? It is clear-cut that George has no legal interest in the property as his name is not on the title deed since the house is registered in Rose and Paul’s joint names. Now that Rose has died, the title deed of the house vests solely in Paul’s name as the Right of Survivorship (‘Jus Accresendi’) applies. Since George does not retain a legal interest in the property, how do we determine if George retains an equitable interest in the property?

Rule/ Principle
When an occupier whose name does not appear on the title deed, that
On the facts, we are not given if Paul had made any representation to George. If Paul had made any statements similar to ‘this is mine as much as it is yours’, then Paul would be liable for this representation and therefore, the court would rule that he cannot evict George at will as there is a promise made to George, George relied on it, and when Paul had gone back to his words, George had suffered a loss as a result of this. The court would rule that this was unfair to George.
In the case of Ramsden v Dyson [1866], the defendant had granted the plaintiff a yearly tenancy. The defendant then proceeds to erect buildings on the land, spending a substantial amount on it. The defendant then gave notice to the plaintiff to cease the tenancy. The plaintiff had relied on the defendant’s agent’s assurances that he would be entitled to the possession of the land for as long as he paid his rent and that he could call on the defendant for the grant of a formal 60 year tenancy after that, and there is a right to renew the tenancy. Thus, he sought equitable relief on the basis that he had relied on the assurances that were given to him. Lord Kingsdown ruled that he would have given some relief and mentioned compensation for the expenditure spent on erecting the buildings on the land or an interest in the
In the case of Tanner v Tanner [1975], the defendant and the plaintiff had children and agreed that a house should be purchased for the defendant and their children. The plaintiff had later asked the defendant to leave the house and sued for possession. The defendant was awarded damages, as it was ruled that in all the circumstances, the licence was a contractual one, lasting until the children were of school-leaving age as the defendant gave up her rent controlled accommodation in return for a better home for the children.
A licence coupled with an interest is one that arises by means of a right held in land, an example would be mortgage. However, it does not appear to be so on the