Upgrade to remove ads
Only $2.99/month

Land Law: Key Cases

Terms in this set (28)

Pye v UK
- Grand chamber: Decided for UK (Uphold HL decision + UK law on AP)
- Art 1 NOT Art 6 engaged, not about deprivation of possession but control of use (compensation not required)
- Balance within margin of appreciation
Ives v High
- Estoppel: Good against Westgate, Wrights + Ives (Available not only against Wrights but also their successors in title) - N.B: S116 LRA 2002
- Mutuality (Ives): He who takes benefit must accept the burden
Chaudhary v Yavuz
- CA: In favour of Yavuz
-Ch against Yavuz: Sch 3 paragraph 2= use not occupation, CT= NO, no new obligation
Pettitt, Gissing
Not so permissive in use of CTs
Eves v Eves, Cook v Head
More helpful to those claiming BIs under implied trusts
Lloyds Bank v Rosset
Common intention 1. Express bargain 2 Implied bargain
Oxley v Hiscock
Once over Rosset test, more relaxed (look at whole course of dealing in relation to the property)
Stack v Dowden
NOT fairness but what parties intended
Jones v Kernott, Re Ali
Stack perhaps relaxes quantification but not establishing an interest
Morris v Morris
Maybe Courts sticking to Rossett's strict approach?
C&G v Norgan
Remaining period of loan
Ropaigealach v Barclays Bank
Repossession without an order
Horsham Properties v Clark & Beech
No need to take possession in order to exercise right to sale. Procedure is determined by method by which mortgage created, nature of default and interest
Palk v Mortgage Services
Mortgagor unable to sell, negative equity mortgages/arrangements --> S91 LPA 1925
Williams & Glyn's Bank v Boland
Overreaching only applies where purchases money paid over to two trustees, doesn't not depend on good faith or circumstances of transfer
CBS v Flegg
Boland only applies where single legal title holder. Disposition by two trustees, overreaching take place even if beneficiaries are in AO
Bristol and West Building Society v Henning
Know + Benefit= Implied consent
Abbey National v Cann
- Grant or registration? Time of grant NOT when registered
- Nemo dat approach: rejected, contemporaneity= accepted
Scott v Southern Pacific Mortgages
Can purchaser grant property rights between contract and completion?
- If property rights can be granted, does contract remain separate from completion? (outside scope fo Cann?) NO
- If contract treated as indivisible from completion, even if property rights capable of being granted, would be unable to constitute an OI
Mortgage Express v Lambert
- S26 LRA 2002: OI cannot affect validity of the disposition
- Conscionable bargain: Only binding on person sold too NOT banks
Burton v London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Leases: evidence of increasing contractualisation
Arnold v Britton
Held: should revert back to literal meaning as relying on common sense undermines importance of the language of the provision which is to be construed.
Southwark LBC v Mills
Landlord can't do anything which 'substantially interferes with tenant's title to or possession of the demised premises or with his ordinary and lawful enjoyment of the demised premises
Warren v Keen
Tenant's obligations- behave in a tenant like manner
Expert Clothing Services & Sales Ltd v Hillgate House
Breach of positive covenant, whether continuing for once for all, was ordinarily capable of remedy by the performance of the covenant and payment of compensation
Tulk v Moxhay
- Equity (NO contract between P and D)
- New equitable proprietary right in enforcing the covenant against successive owners
--> High inequitable for party to pay less for estate because encumbered by covenant, then sell it as unencumbered for a higher price + party who takes property with knowledge of an equity is liable to the equity
Federated Homes Ltd v Mill Lodge Properties Ltd
- S78: means as long as covenant related to the land of the covenantee, will run with the land successors in title
- Covenant automatically annexed to the whole and every party of the land unless contrary clearly indicated (Crest Nicholson v McAllister)
- Benefit of covenant was available for both green and red land
Halsall v Brizell
Covenants Problems
- Covenants: Only works where benefit + burden linked
--> Rhone v Stephens: Refused to generalise idea of burden coming with benefit
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE...