Land Law Cases

Williams & Glyn’s Bank LTD v Boland – introduction to land law

Bought a house in his sole name. Wife pays some purchase price. Had a mortgage couldn’t pay - the bank had not inquired about the existence of his wife they did not have the power to kick her out.

1 of 51

Royal bank of Scotland v Etridge – introduction to land law

Conjoined appeal – What steps have to be taken when a partner takes out a mortgage and puts their partner at danger. Bank must make sure the partner knows the risks relates to second mortgages.

2 of 51

Grigsby v Melville [1974] 1 WLR 80 – defining land.

Property split into two. There was a celler under the half that was sold but the entrance to that was on the sellers side – the conveyance of land covers all that is below it.

3 of 51

Thomas v Sorrell – A licence is just a legal permission to take an action.

Selling wine without a licence so had to pay a fine. A licence makes an action lawful.

4 of 51

Errington v Errington & Woods – Licenses are not binding on successors to the freehold but leases are so binding.

father bought his son and his wife a house –had a mere permission to live there until they paid off the mortgage. When the father died the widow tried to kick her son out of the property but, through equity they were allowed to stay.

5 of 51

Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold - rent is not essential for the existence of a lease.

Arnold sold his property then leased it back to himself for no rent – court said a lease without a rent was ok here – exceptional event.

6 of 51

Lace v Chantler – Lease vs License – certainty of term

Let a house for ‘the duration of the war’ – was there a lease here? You did not know when the war was going to end therefore there is no lease – there is no certain terms.

7 of 51

Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v London Residuary Body – Leases must be for a determinable term.

Agreement with council to rent a shop until the council decided to widen the road. Road was never widened. The council tried to get rid of him. He argued he had a lease however there was no determinable term therefore there was no lease.

8 of 51

Berrisford v Mexfield – Applying the exception to the ‘fixed term’ rule.

Sold home to a housing coop with agreement that she could continue to live there – co-op tried to kick her out but SC said LPA 1925, s.149(6) applied and that effectively as an estate for life had tried to be created - allowed her to stay.

9 of 51

Javad v Aqil – periodic terms – major exception to the fixed term rule.

Informal agreement about rent. The negotiations broke down and the lessor sought to evict – Aqil refused to lease on the basis that his possession had created an implied quarterly periodic tenancy – the potential lessee was merely a tenant at will.

10 of 51

Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v London Residuary Body – justifying a periodic term in the context of a ‘year to year’ lease.

Certainty is provided as each party has power by notice to determine at the end of any year. The term continues until determined as if both parties made a new agreement at the end of each year for a new term for the resultant year.

11 of 51

Steet v Mountford – exclusive possession

Agreement that Mrs Mountford had the right to 2 rooms in the property – she had exclusive possession. A tenant owning an exclusive possession can call the land their own and can reject people including the landlord coming in.

12 of 51

Aslan v Murphy – exclusive possession - Owner cannot create a ‘sham’ agreement to deny a lease.

Wanted a licence and not a lease because she wanted possession and sell it moving on. Sham lcence - in reality the exclusive possession it was not feasible to bring more people in. could not as a landlord just sell the property and move on.

13 of 51

AG Securities v. Vaughan – exclusive possession

Separate agreements can be ‘read together’ to create exclusive possession for couples.

14 of 51

Westminster City Council v. Clarke – exclusive possession

Common sense: no exclusive possession if that would defeat the purpose of the agreement. Homeless shelter – council owned premises - stay for short periods - one man said he had exclusive possession – defeat the purpose of a temporary shelter.

15 of 51

Gray v. Taylor – exclusive possession

nature of the agreement assessed carefully in a fact-sensitive way. Accommodation provided by charity – occupant behaving badly wanted to kick him out – the intention of the agreement was a licence not a lease so no exclusive possession.

16 of 51

Bruton v London Quadrant Housing Trusts – Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenants Act 1985– duty to repair.

B demanded repair. London council had freehold and the LQ had a licence and tried to give out leases. They argued that despite Mr Bruton having exclusive possession, there was no lease LQ was itself a licensee, no proprietary right to grant away.

17 of 51

Kay v London Borough Lambeth – the end of the Bruton tale.

Case said Mr Bruton did not have a binding lease vis a vis the Council lease binding London and Quadrant. The freehold owner can just say forget about this ‘Bruton lease’. Contract or agreement – just a way of forcing repairs. Only affect Mr Bruton.

18 of 51

Walsh v Lonsdale – equitable leases

Mill owner who agreed without a deed to lease the mill, agreed without the correct formalities. Wanted a years rent in advance (not what was discussed). There was an equitable lease and he could pay the rent in the way they discussed.

19 of 51

Southwark LBC v Mills – Implied covenants for Tenant - Quiet enjoyment as a covenant.

Right to be left undisturbed, not a right to actually have quiet – so minimal protection from implied covenant. It just means you have a right not to be harassed cannot force the landlord to make your flat quiet.

20 of 51

Lee v Leeds City Council – implied repair covenants are minimal

Implied duty to repair – general minimal duty – tenant had mould in home – council said they would not deal with it – w ent beyond the Act. Court said this was fine.

21 of 51

Re Ellenborough Park – easements

A right will not be recognised as an easement unless it is sufficiently defined and benefits the dominant piece of land.

22 of 51

Hill v Tupper – easement

A right does not benefit the dominant land if it merely benefits the business interests of an individual.

23 of 51

Harris v De Pinna – easement

A right to light in a particular window can be an easement – this is a right to stop light-blocking buildings from being erected.

24 of 51

Cuckmere Brick Co Ltd v Mutual Finance Ltd – mortgage

There is a duty of care to get the true market value on a forced sale – statutory protection – this was not achieves there was liability to make up the different here.

25 of 51

Tulk v Moxhay – restrictive covenants run with the land as interest.

Open space subject to restrictive covenants – cannot build on it. They bind all owners – overlap with easements. They know the land had to be kept as a park – not enough to say you did not know about the interest – you ought to have known.

26 of 51

Spiro v Glencrown Properties Ltd – Options to purchase

The option to purchase -agreed in advance. Glencrown exercised his right to buy the property but then did not actually pay up. Spiro could sue for breach of contract – won if you say you are taking up this right then fail to do so that is a breach.

27 of 51

Hunk v Luck – constructive notice

G fraudulently mortgages properties owned by H who died (wife inheried). Mortgage lender had no actual knowledge of her existence. Mortgage lender lost out - ought to have known about interests in the property.

28 of 51

Caunce v Caunce – constructive notice

Wife has equitable interest had a right to occupy the property but held her occupation didn’t give the lender the impression that there was an equitable interest. Unlikely to have any interest in the property (old & sexist).

29 of 51

Williams & Glyn’s Bank Ltd v Boland – constructive notice – overturns Caunce v Caunce

Same facts as Caunce v Caunce – held that the wife had an equitable interest – had a right in the land.

30 of 51

Kingsnorth Trust Co Ltd v Tizard – constructive notice

Mr Tizard wife was a beneficiary. Property inspected via an agent – Mr Tizard tried to trick the agent. Court said the inspector should not have been dubed by Mr Tizard, allowed himself to be fooled – could not take the property.

31 of 51

Parkash v Irani Finance Ltd – doctrine of notice is void.

notice is no longer relevant in a registered system.

32 of 51

De Lusignan v Johnson – unregistered interests

Even where there is actual notice – an unregistered interest can be ‘wiped away’

33 of 51

Birmingham Midshires Mortgage Service Ltd v Sabherwal – Mortgage lender paying over monies to two trustees permits overreaching.

Mrs Sab has contributed to purchase price – two sons took up the mortgage on the property – mortgage lender paid over money to the sons, they were the trustees, she was the beneficiary.

34 of 51

City of London Building Society v Flegg – mortgage lender attempting to overreach beneficial interests under trust giving right to occupation.

Couple living with their parents – parents were beneficiaries and the couple were the trustees. Couple unable to pay the mortgage. The parents claimed they had a right to stay the HL said no – overreaching is strict.

35 of 51

State Bank of India v Sood - Where ‘paying over’ is not contemporaneous with the creation of the mortgage.

Possible for a lender to overreach beneficial interests. Instead of paying over money the money lender gave a large overdraft – this lender can also benefit from overriding.

36 of 51

Scott v Southern Pacific Mortgages Ltd – registration is conveyancing

The system of land registration is merely conveyancing machinery. The underlying law relating to the creation of estates and interests in land remains the same. Land law is now all about registration – the relies on all of the common law charges.

37 of 51

Shiloh Spinners Ltd v Harding – equitable right of entry.

Deeds are still the basis of ownership – interests were registered against the name of the deed holder. A land charge shall be registered in the name of the estate owner whose estate is intended to be affected.

38 of 51

Diligent Finance Co Ltd v Alleyne – Unregistered land – charge registered against Erskine Alleyne.

Wrongly spelt name – need to get it right to protect your interest. Unable to find her interests then the lender could take possession. Can forget about the doctrine of notice – register protects it as long as you get the name right.

39 of 51

Midland Bank Trust Co Ltd v Green ¬– the impact of failing to register.

Father granted a son a 10 year option to buy a farm - knew the son had not registered the option to buy. The mother had purchased – the sons option was destroyed. Beneficial interest behind a trust are uncovered by the Land Charges Act 1972.

40 of 51

Halifax and Bank of Scotland v Curry Popeck – priority of interests – mortgage

Registered proprietors of property fraudulently had 3 mortgages with different lenders. The registered lender got the money – were not the first to get a mortgage – when you register you get priority. Registering an interest protects it.

41 of 51

Barclays Bank v Zaroovabli – if you fall into the registration gap you do not protect your interest.

Mortgage was never registers –it is not protected and cannot take priority – bank fell into the registration gap. Only equitable until registered.

42 of 51

Celsteel v Alton Housing Holdings – overriding easements.

the first case that recognised that pre 2003 easements are overriding.

43 of 51

Webb v Pollmount – interest and actual occupation = overriding interest.

Webb has a lease of land and the option to purchase that land –as he was actucally occupying the property –he has a overriding interest.

44 of 51

Thompson v Foy - What is actual occupation?

Physical presence required, Possible to ‘occupy’ on behalf of someone else, Licensees are not in actual occupation has to be an interest in the land, furniture does not count as actual occupation and There must be a continuing intention to occupy.

45 of 51

Thomas v Clydesdale Bank Plc – key definition of actual occupation.

Determine matters which would be obvious on inspection & matters which would require enquiry to ascertain them. (permanence and continuity of the presence of the person concerned, the intentions of that person and the personal circumstances.

46 of 51

Ferrishurst v Wallcite – actual occupation of what?

A freeholder, lease and two sub-leases. Offices under a sub-lease. Freeholder changed (was the registered proprietor). Sub-lease was not on the register (option to purchase) we can wipe it away. Ferrishurst had an overriding interest.

47 of 51

HSBC Bank Plc v Dyche – payment to two trustees necessary for overreaching.

2 couples has agreement, 1 would live in and pay mortgage the others were legal owners (constructive trust for the benefit of couple in occupation). Divorce led to Mrs Dyche being the sole trusee so the benefitical interest couldn’t be overreached.

48 of 51

City of London Building Society v Flegg – overreaching

mortgage lenders attempting to overreach beneficial interest under trust giving right to occupation. Overriding interested can be defeated by the knowing intention of the person with the interest – intention matters.

49 of 51

Paddington Building Society v Mendelsohn – overriding interest can be defeated by the knowing intention of the person with the interest.

Mum had a beneficial interest behind a trust she was in actual occupation - has an overriding interest but knew about mortgage and the possibility of repossession and therefore the lender could take possession.

50 of 51

Strand Securities v Caswell – actual occupation.

Equitable lease and kept furniture but did not live there – his step daughter did. Court said he was not in actual occupation his step daughter was – lost his lease.

51 of 51

Get Revising

Land Law Cases

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Back

Card 3

Front

Back

Card 4

Front

Back

Card 5

Front

Back

Comments

Similar Law resources:

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Back

Card 3

Front

Back

Card 4

Front

Back

Card 5

Front

Back

Comments

Related discussions on The Student Room

Similar Law resources: