Land Law Cases

Question	Answer
BP v Buckler	Possession orders reset period for adverse possession. Unilateral license.
Elitestone v Morris	Avoid 2-fold distinction between fixtures & chattels. Added part & parcel of land.
Botham v TSB Bank	Test of degree of annexation. Held that bath, lavatory and bathroom fittings were fixtures. Curtains, carpets, light fittings, kitchen appliances such as washing machines, dishwashers etc. are chattels. Q to be asked is if it enabled the chattel to be better enjoyed as a chattel or for the more convenient use of the land.
Leigh v Taylor	Tapestries were chattels.
Chelsea Yacht & Boat Company v Pope	Houseboat tied to land with connection to mains electricity, gas and sewage was only a chattel. Not enough annexation.
Mew v Tristmire	Houseboat could no longer float so rested on wooden planks on land. To remove would destroy them. Still remained chattel.
Taylor v Hamer	Time of contract there were 2 large flagstones in garden which were removed. These were fixtures.
Burnstein v Skyviews & General	Claim based on maxim: whose is the soil, his is also that which is above and below it. Claim failed as maxim was outdated.
Sky Energy v Bocardo	License to obtain oil which took them under his land. He claimed trespass, but not full damages as no loss of amenity.
D-eyn Court v Gregory	If articles form part of architectural design then they are fixtures.
J A Pye (Oxford) v Graham	Graham had license to use land. Upon expiration he remained, in adverse possession for 12 years. Was entitled to be registered as proprietor.
Pubrick v Hackney	Squatter accessed building, covered doors with corrugated iron which he padlocked. He had excluded the world at large, which demonstrates intention to possess.
Powel v MacFarlane	14 year old boy overstepped boundary a little. Overstepping a little is not sufficient to possess. By time he had possessed enough did not satisfy limitation period.
Colin Dawson Windows v Howard	negotiations gave implied license to use land, so possession was not adverse.
Ofulue v Bossert	Acknowledgement of title reset limitation period.
Zarb v Parry	20 minutes interrupted possession was not sufficient to reset limitation period.
Red House Farms	Using land for its purpose or regulating its use are sufficient acts of possession.
Baxter v Mannion	Mr Mannion failed to give counter-notice to a claim of adverse possession within 65 days as he suffered a series of family misfortunes. Court reversed Baxter's registration of title.
Yeats v Line	Oral agreement to resolve boundary dispute was valid contract, so no adverse possession.
Fairweather v St Marylebone Property	Accrual for adverse possession over leasehold property starts at the end of the lease.
Spectrum Investment v Holmes	If 12 years adverse possession have run over a leasehold property, a claim will be for adverse possession over leasehold, but not freehold.
Hickman v Peacy	4 JTs killed by bomb. Following s184 LPA 1925, if it cannot be determined in what order people died, it will be assumed that they died in order of seniority.
Re Crippen	No survivorship in event of killing. Instead a TinC forms.
Goodman v Gallant	If in an express trust, a declaration is made as to whether it is a JT or a TinC, this is conclusive.
Stack v Dowden	Based on contribution there is no beneficial joint tenancy.
Jones v Kernott	Based on contributions, no beneficial joint tenancy.
4 methods of severance?	-Notice -Statutory -Dealing with own share -Mutual severance
Neilson-Jones v Fedden	Severance must refer to severance of ownership and not anything else.
Re Draper's Conveyance	-No requirement that written notice be signed. -Summons and affidavit requesting IMMEDIATE order of sale to courts constituted written notice of severance.
Harris v Goddard	Summons did not request IMMEDIATE order for sale so did not constitute notice.
Kinch v Bullard	Wife was terminally ill. Sent Mr Johnson notice. He had a heart attach before seeing it. She destroyed notice. She could not claim survivorship as severance had already occurred.
First National Security v Hegarty	Husband forged wife's signature on legal charge. Constituted severance as an act upon his share.
Re Palmer	Palmer declared bankrupt after his death. Severance occurred at time of bankruptcy, so survivorship occurred first.
Davis v Smith	Correspondence between JT evidenced intention to sell house and split proceeds. Therefore severance had occurred.
Burgess v Rawnsley	JT intended to live in house together Man expected marriage, while woman expected to live in flat upstairs. Due to mismatch of intentions, there was an agreement for her to sell her share. This constituted severance.
Birmingham Midshires Mortgage Services v Sabherwal	An interest claimed under proprietary estoppel can be overreached.
State Bank of India v Sood	Overreaching can still occur even where there is no capital money. Interest was attached to equity of redemption.
City of London Building Society v Flegg	Requirement of at least 2 trustees to overreach.
Re Buchanan-Wollaston's Conveyance	Purpose trust doctrine. Where land is bought for a specific purpose, sale should not be ordered so as to defeat that purpose.
Bull v Bull	Purpose trust doctrine. House bought for the purpose of being a home, so no order for sale.
Waller v Waller	Breach of trust to sell without consultation.
Mortgage Corporation v Shaire	Creditors interests are of no greater importance than any other consideration when considering an application for an order of sale.
Pettitt v Pettitt	Equity follows the law. No contribution to purchase price.
Gissing v Gissing	Need to provide contribution to purchase price.
Lloyds Bank v Rossett	Terms of trust demonstrate no common intention for her to have beneficial interest. She made no contribution to purchase price.
Caunce v Caunce	Wife's occupation was a shadow of her husband's.
Cave v Cave	Trustee carried out 2 fraudulent mortgages. 1 legal, 1 equitable. Mortgagee of equitable mortgage lost to beneficiary as first in time rule applies.
William & Glyn's v Bolland	Mortgagees and purchasers must investigate all occupiers. Test of actual occupation are words of basic English.
King's North Trust v Tizard	Did not fulfil duty of enquiry (Registered land so only used by analogy)
Hunt v Luck	Bank had no duty to find out who rent was being collected for. Went beyond duty of enquiry. Had the bank had actual knowledge they would have been bound by his interest.
National Provincial Bank v Ainsworth	Property vested solely in Mr Ainsworth's name. Mortgaged to support his business. Mrs A had no property right.
Hodgson v Marks	Overriding interest based on actual occupation bound purchasers.
Stockhold Finance	Saudi Princess had home in England, gone for over a year. Had no actual occupation.
Link Lending v Bustard	Property on resulting trust for Mrs Bustard. She was sectioned, only allowed weekly visits home. Despite extensive absence, intention to return suggested actual occupation.
Re Boyle's Claim	Must be in occupation at time of registration to have overriding interest.
Abbey National v Cann	Ignoring Re Boyle's Claim. Having keys to give to carpet layer was too trivial to amount to actual occupation.
Hypo-Mortgage Services v Robinson	Persons under age of 18 cannot have an overriding interest by occupation.
Thorner v Major	Silent farmers. Proprietary estoppel.
Yeomans Row v Cobbe	Claim of proprietary estoppel failed because he was an experienced developer and should have known to follow formality. Granted personal remedy based on expenditure.
Lissimore v Downing	Representation not intended to give an interest in property, so no estoppel.
Inwards v Baker	Son build bungalow on father's land with expectation of living there for life. Proprietary estoppel successful due to expectation.
Hill v Tupper	No property right created by contract. No easement recognised as an easement - must benefit the land.
Keppell v Bailey	Binding promise to only use limestone from quarry. When owner changed, agreement not upheld. No property right created. Novel rights cannot be created and attached to the land at the fancy of the owner.
Aston Cantlow v Wallbank	Wallbanks, having inherited land were required to pay for repairs to the church. Automatic burdens on land will bind future owners.
Midland Bank v Green	Equitable property right needs to be registered on land charges register.
Street v Mountford	Despite being referred to as a license, the fact that Mrs M had exclusive possession meant that she had a lease.
Sommer v Hazelhurst	No lease as no exclusive possession.
Antonidas v Villieos	Clause in document saying Mr A could use the room, and could permit anyone else to use it. He had a lease, as the clause was clearly a sham device to preclude exclusive possession.
Mike Over v Brady	Couple signed separate documents. Lady moved out, man wanted to stay. Man offered to pay both sets of rent then reneged. By holding Brady only to have to pay for his part, there no lease.
Bruton v London & Quadrant Investments	You can grant a lease, even if you don't have the property right yourself, provided there is exclusive possession.
Parkus v Greenwood	Option to renew lease every 3 years on same term, essentially perpetual. Based on s190 LPA 1922, converted to a fixed term, 2000 year lease.
Lace v Chancellor	Lease granted for duration of war. Lease not valid as no prospective certainty.
Prudential Assurance v London Residuary Body	Lease granted until land required for road widening. Lease was sold. Council was replaced by LRB. Shop built with front half over contested land. Lease void for perpetuity, so LRB permitted to sell front half.
Berrisford v Mexfield	Right to occupier for indefinite period treated as lease for life (fixed term 90 years).
Ladies' Hosiery v Parker	Key issue to find period of tenancy is based on payment if not otherwise stated. e.g. £500/week paid monthly would mean a month of tenancy.
Barrett v Morgan	(Obiter) Because you can serve notice to quit within a periodic tenancy the period will be certain.
Clay v British Railways Board	Agreement not to serve notice to quit until area was needed for business valid because notice to quit could be served eventually.
Centaploy v Motlodge	Agreement not to serve notice to quit invalid if notice to quit could never be served.
Hammersmith & Fulham v Monk	1 joint tenant can end tenancy of the other JT with notice to quit.
Harrow v Qazi	Argument that Monk was contrary to HRA by depriving someone of Art 6 and Art 8 rights. Case succeeded, but HL said that Monk was still in force, by protecting existing property rights.
United Bank of Kuwait v Sahib	Deposit of deed to bank not valid, as an equitable charge is required to be in writing, subject LP(MP)A 1989 s2(1).
Hughmans v Central Stream	Equitable mortgage must be protected by registering it. Not order of creation, but order of registration.
Multiservice Bookbinding v Marden	To be oppressive and unreasonable, a contract must have been enforced in a way which is unconscionable.
Knightsbridge Estates v Byrne	Principle that you can redeem at any time is out of date. Freedom of contract prevails. Seems to be inconsistent with HL decision.
Kreglinger v New Patagonia Meat Company	Collateral contracts survive redemption of mortgage.
Samuel v Jarrah Timber	Contract for option to purchase in mortgage contract is invalid.
ESSO Petroleum v Harper's Garage	Mortgage agreed with solus agreement. Void as it contradicted rules relating to freedom of competition.
Barclays Bank v O'Brien	Misrepresentations made by husband rendered agreement voidable.
CIBC v Pitt	Mortgage and remortgage of shares. Shares collapse. Undue influence.
BCCI v Aboody	Husband pressured wife, but not void as there was no manifest disadvantage.
Lloyds Bank v Bundy	If bank manager lies to you then mortgage is voidable.
RBS v Etridge	If bank seeks independent agent to get surety to sign agreement, then no liability for undue influence.
Western Bank v Schindler	A reasonable period under s36 Administration and Justice Act 1970 must be determined on circumstances of case. Under suitable circumstances it will be the whole prospective life of the mortgage.
RBS v Miller	Caretakers' flat in nightclub. This meant that it was classed as a dwellinghouse.
Cheltenham & Gloucester Building Society v Norman	22 year mortgage - reasonable catch up period was remaining time of mortgage.
Cuckmere Brick v Mutual Finance	Mortgagee, when exercising power of sale must obtain best price, else he is liable for loss in profit.
Tse Kwong Lam v Wong Chit Sen	Mortgagee may sell to party with interest in property provided best price (at the time) is attained and sale is in good faith.
Corbit v Halifax Building Society	A sale will not be set aside solely if it under value. It will require a degree of bad faith and impropriety.
Cheshire's Test	- Non-accomodation - Uncertainty - Positivity - Exclusivity n.b. Cheshire's test are all reasons for rejection.
Re Ellenborough Park	Will be valid as long as it passes Cheshire's Test. If easement will increase value of the land then it will benefit the land.
Moody v Steggles	Pub tucked away had sign on main street. Pub had an easement as pub and land are so intertwined that to benefit the pub is to benefit the land.
Rance v Elvin	Right of dominant tenement to use electricity of servient tenement is not an easement. Requiring you to spend money is not an easement and cannot be created by prescription.
Crow v Wood	1 exception to Cheshire's test. Can acquire a right to fencing against cattle. Can be created by prescription.
Copland v Greenhalf	Exclusive possession will not provide an easement.
Moncrieff v Jamieson	Held that space to park a car was an easement. HL defined servient tenement as the part of land which is used, not the entire land.
Sommer v Sweet	Benefit of right of access was granted by the transfer but was not referred to on burden title. Held as an overriding interest as benefits can be overriding.
Chaudhary v Yavuz	Now only legal easement can override the register.
Harris v Flower	Easement benefits a dominant tenement, but not extensions of it.
National Trust v White	Easement that benefits dominant tenement can also benefit ancillary land bought later.
Manjung v Drammeh	Access by water meant no need for an easement of necessity.
MRA Engineering v Trimster Co.	Public footpath access meant no need for an easement of necessity.
Nickerson v Barroughclough	Express agreement excluding way of necessity will be followed by the law.
Wong v Beaumont	If an easement is needed to give effect to the common intentions of the parties before division then it will take effect afterwards. If sale is for a purpose and an easement will be required for that purpose then it will be valid.
Wildon v Burrows	All quasi-easements enjoyed before division will be impliedly granted by division. (Requires one person in occupation of both pieces of land before division)
Ward v Kirkland	To turn a quasi-easement into an easement, must be continuous and apparent.
Goldberg v Edwards	To turn a quasi-easement into an easement, it must be necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of the land under new occupation.
Sovmots Investments v Secretary of State for Environment	To apply Wildon v Burrows, quasi easement must be exercised at time of grant. And also, s62 did not confer rights which had never existed.
B&S Platt v Crouch	Existing easement rights are transferred on sale.
International Tea Stores v Hobbs	Sale turned shortcut from friendly shortcut into legal right of way.
Diment v Foot	Question over pan-handle used 6 times per year. No prescription because no knowledge of facts.
Dalton v Andus	Basis of prescription is acquiescence by land owner -Knowledge of facts by land owner -Power to sue if he wanted to -Failure to sue
Davies v Du Paver	Prescription is barred if landowner of servient land is incapable of granting it.
Bridle v Ruby	Assumption by person who mistakenly believes he has a grant, still believes he has a grant. Therefore no prescription.
Dance v Triplow	Prescription must occur without force.
Barney v BP Truck Stops	Prescription must occur without stealth.
Odey v Barber	Prescription must occur without permission.
Cargill v Gotts	Prescriptive use must be lawful.
Bakewell Management v Brandwood	House set back from main road across common. Brandwood had bought common and charged people huge sums to cross it, claiming they had no prescriptive access, claiming it was a criminal offence to drive across a common. Whomever owned common could grant an easement, so no criminal offence if there was one.
Bryant v Foot	Since evidence of use since 1189 is virtually impossible to use, the courts have been prepared to presume such use on the basis of evidence of long use.
Hulbert v Dale	A right of common law prescription can be rebutted if it can be proved that at some time since 1189 the right claimed has not, or cannot have existed.
Oxfordshire County Council Ex Parte Sunningwell	No right acquired through common law prescription over a building constructed after 1189.
Tehidy Minerals v Norman	No common law prescription if it can be proved that at some point since 1189 the servient and dominant tenement has been under common ownership.
Benn v Hardinge	Non use for 175 years did not extinguish an easement.
Phipps v Pears	Right to view rejected as a negative easement.
Railtrack v Guiness	Right to air rejected as a negative easement.
Hunter v Canary Wharf	Right to T.V. reception rejected as negative easement.
Lawrence v Fentigers	Right to lack of noise rejected as negative easement.
Colls v Home & Colonial Stores	Owner must accept substantial diminuation of light provided enough is left for ordinary purposes.
Allen v Greenwood	Domestic greenhouse used for 20 years. Neighbour erected fence leaving enough light for ordinary purposes but not for use as greenhouse. Negative easement in place so injunction granted.
Tamares v Fairpoint	No right to light if windows are boarded up during prescription period.
Tulk v Moxhay	A restrictive covenant creates an equitable interest in land, enforceable against future owners. Must be created expressly. Covenant must benefit dominant land.
Rhone v Stephenson	Obligation to repair roof of cottage not enforceable as it was a positive obligation.
LCC v Allen	Covenantee must own dominant land.
Crest Nicholson v McAllister	Benefitted land must be identified with reasonable certainty.
Elliston v Reacher	Covenants are mutually enforceable if burden is registered. i.e. can be enforced both ways.
Heywood v Brunswick	Positive covenants do not bind future owners.
Halsall v Brizell	You cannot benefit from a common use if you do not bear its burden.
Wilkinson v Kerdene	Positive obligation to pay maintenance for roads, parking and recreational buildings by a row of bungalows. Covenant was enforceable due to common use.

Next up

Description

Resource summary

Similar

	Created by Tom Dearden almost 10 years ago