Q&A Land Law

• Registered interests - Sched 2 and registered estates
• Indemnity - Sched 8
• Rectification - Sched 4
• Gurantee of Title - S 58
• Overriding interests - Sched 1 & 3 - decreased the scope of overriding interests

Reasons behind land registration system

• Title
• Insurance Principle
• Curtain Principle
• Mirror Principle

Overriding interests

• Legal leases of less than or equal to 7 years - Sched 1 Para 1, Sched 3 Para 1
• Interests protected by actual occupation - Sched 1 Para 2, Sched 3 Para 2
• Legal easements - Sched 1 Para 3
• Implied legal easements - Sched 3 Para 3

Registered interests

• Estates - freehold estates and leasehold estates of more than 7 years
• Interests entered as the subject of a notice - S 33 LRA 2002

Methods of severance - joint tenancy or tenancy in common

• Mutual agreement (Hunter v Babbage)
• Mutual conducut (Williams v Hensman)
• If joint tenancy, right of survivorship applies (Gould v Kemp)
• Notice - S 36 LPA 1925 (Smith v Davis)
• Acting on your own share: Going bankrupt (Re Dennis) Forgoing signature (First National Securities v Hegerty)

Fundamental of leases

• RENT - not always needed - S 205 LPA 1925 (Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold)
• EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION - (Street v Mountford)
• FORMALITIES - legal lease - S 52 & 54 LPA 1925, - equitable lease - S 2 LPA (MP) 1989 (Walsh v Lonsdale)
• TIME CERTAIN - (Berrisford v Mexfield), - periodic tenancy (Prudential Assurance v London Residuary Body)

Remedies for breach of covenant

• Action for arrears of rent - debt claim
• Action for damages
• Distress - right to seize goods for recovery of rent only
• Set-off - often excluded
• Action for debt - (Jarvis v Harris)
• Injunction - discretionary
• Forfeiture  - Right of re-entry
   - Ends the lease S 146 LPA 1925
   - Commercial/residential distinction

General principles of proprietary estoppel

• Informal method of creating interests in land
• Development - (Wilmott v Barber) TO (Taylor Fashion v Liverpool Victoria)
• Assurance - must be 'sufficiently certain' (Thorner v Major)
• Detriment - does not need to be related to the land per se (Jennings v Rice)
• Reliance - presumed once detriment is shown (Greasley v Cooke)
• Unconscionability - separate requirement or the background principle? (Dixon)

Requirements of easements (Re Ellenborough Park)

• Dominant and servient land must be in separate ownership (Roe v Sidoons)
• Dominant and servient land (Hawkins v Rutter)
• Easement accomodates the dominant land
   - Not conferring a personal benefit (Hill v Tupper)
   - Sufficient physical proximity (Bailey v Stevens)
• Capable of forming the subject matter of a grant
   - Capable grantor and grantee
   - Sufficiently certain (Browne v Flower)
   - Within the general nature of rights, recognised as easements (Phipps v Pears)  (Batchelor v Marlowe)

Methods of creating easements

Expressly

• Written contract - equitable easement - (Walsh v Lonsdale)
• Deed - equitable easement (unregistered land) - S 52 LPA 1925
• Entry as the subject of a notice (registered land) - S 2 LRA 2002

Impliedly

Grant

• Easements of necessity - (Re MRA Engineering)
• Common intention - (Wong v Beaumont Properties)  (Stafford v Lee)
• The rule in Wheeldon v Burrows
• S 62 LPA 1925 - (Platt v Crouch)

Reservation

• Easement of necessity - (Pinnington v Galland)
• Common intention - (Peckham v Ellison)

Burden of freehold covenants

• Restrictive covenants only, and only in equity - (Tulk v Moxhay)
• 'Touches and concerns the land'
• Dominant and servient land is required
• Presumed annexation - S 79 LPA 1925

Running of the benefit of a freehold covenant

• Touches and concerns the land
• Sue in contract
• Party to the covenant as a result of S 56 LPA 1925
• Successor - legal or equitable estate
• Assignment
• Annexation S 78 LPA 1925