Whilst licences are rights connected to the use of land they are unusual since, in theory at least, they do not confer any proprietary right upon the licensee and thus the protection they afford a licensee is limited.
It is suggested that you first consider the traditional view of a licence, notably that it creates a personal and not a proprietary right. Analysis of the difference between personal and proprietary rights may be appropriate, with specific focus on the ability of a holder of a proprietary interest to enforce that right against third parties in certain circumstances. Consider how, traditionally, such an ability has not been afforded upon licensees by looking at each type of licence. A bare licence, for example, can be revoked at any time; a contractual licence may be enforceable between the original parties by the intervention of equity (Winter Garden Theatre (London) Ltd v Millennium Productions Ltd (1948)) but not beyond those parties (King v David Allen & Sons (1916)).Why has the law traditionally limited licences to having a mere personal status?
Focus could then turn to challenging the statement that licences do not confer a proprietary right upon licensees and the protection that goes with it.
Again you could focus on specific types of licences:
TO GET THIS OR ANY OTHER ASSIGNMENT DONE FOR YOU FROM SCRATCH, PLACE A NEW ORDER HERE