All Cases Flashcards
Constructive notice: all things could have acquired if made enquiries & inspections ought reasonably have done. When inspecting land must make suitable enquiries of people in occupation
Hunt v Luck
If no valuable consideration given for disposition of registered estate & notice not registered in Charges Register, donee takes land subject to all interests pre-dating disposition
Halifax v Curry
Imputed notice: all things agents working on transaction have actual or constructive notice
Kingsnorth Finance v Tizard: would have been reasonable for surveyor to have made further enquiries after discovering T was in fact married (not single, as had stated on mortgage application form)
Once purchaser of unregistered land can prove he was bona fide purchaser of legal estate for value without notice, equitable interest loses its ability to bind future third parties
Wilkes v Spooner
Mere notice of an unprotected interest (not registered as notice in Charges Register) does not bind purchaser unless fraud
Lyus v Prowsa: unprotected right mentioned in contract for sale -> constructive trust triggered
Argument failed in Chaudhary v Yavuz
Successful overreaching requires payment of monies to at least 2 trustees. Once overreached, beneficial interests will not bind purchaser
City of London BS v Flegg: property purchased by married couple with contributions from wife’s parents (so parents had beneficial interest). Property mortgaged & BS sought repossession. BS not bound by parents’ beneficial interests as paid mortgage monies to married couple ie two trustees
Where beneficial interest not overreached, and interest holder is in actual occupation, binds purchaser as overriding interest
William & Glyn’s Bank v Boland: bank bound by wife’s beneficial interest under trust as only advanced mortgage monies to one legal owner & wife in actual occupation
Relevant time to establish actual occupation for purpose of Sch 3 para 2 is time of completion (ie date of transfer). Actual occupation not established on mere preparatory acts to occupy
Abbey National BS v Cann: mother not in actual occupation so no overriding interest binding on BS, despite having moved some furniture into property before completion & despite physically occupying property at time of registration
Can be in actual occupation for purpose of Sch 3 para 2 through agent, but only if can establish other person occupying is your agent
Strand Securities v Caswell: father failed to prove actual occupation through showing step daughter lived at property
In establishing actual occupation for purposes of Sch 3 para 2, look at nature of property. Semi derelict property may be occupied by virtue of presence of builders
Lloyds Bank v Rosset: wife could not claim binding interest against bank to whom husband had mortgaged semi derelict property. Although was in actual occupation, found to have no interest
In establishing actual occupation for purposes of Sch 3 para 2, relevant factors include intention to return, keeping furniture & personal effects at property, regular visits to property & continued payment of property outgoing a
Linklending v Bustard: woman in actual occupation despite being absent from property by reason of being in mental institution
Temporary absences justifiable when proving actual occupation for purposes of Sch 3 para 2 provided there is some physical evidence of occupation present coupled with intention to return
Chhokar v Chhokar: wife’s beneficial interest under trust found to be binding on purchaser. Having paid purchase monies to just one trustee, no overreaching. Wife in hospital giving birth but still found to be in actual occupation
Where interest overriding under Sch 3 para 2, only binding as to extent of land actually occupied
Reverses decision in Ferrishurst v Wallcite
Purchaser should make enquiry of actual holder of interest when determining whether someone is in actual occupation for purposes of Sch 3 para 2
Hodgeson v Marks
Notice not relevant in land charges system
S 199(1) LPA 1925 Hollington Bros v Rhodes: equitable lease not registered so not binding on purchaser of reversion despite sale being expressly subject to lease with reduced purchase price
If interest registered against wrong name in LCA 1972, not binding
Diligent Finance v Alleyne: wife failed to register Class F land charge against husband’s full name. Right not binding on company who correctly searched register against full name
Court is not to enquire about adequacy of consideration provided by purchaser in respect of application of LCA 1972 rules. Knowledge of purchaser irrelevant.
Midland Bank v Green: estate contract between father and son not registered. Father then sold property to mother for £500. Denning in CA: not valuable consideration, merely token. Wilberforce in HL: £500 is too much to be merely nominal sum.
Equity underlined with maxims: claimant must come to court with clean hands -> means can’t act in grossly unconscionable manner
Coatsworth v Johnson: C sought specific performance of agreement for lease which was declined as C was himself in breach of one of covenants in lease
Contracts to purchase land must comply with s 2 LP(MP)A 1989. Non-stat exception is where contract has been executed
Keay v Morris Homes
Under s 2 LP(MP)A 1989, contract must be in writing, which includes:
Typing, printing & emailing: J Periera Fernandes v Mehta
Under LP(MP)A 1989, contract must be signed by both parties. If it is an incorporated doc situation, it is the incorporating doc that must be signed by both. Signature should be given its ordinary meaning
Firstpost Homes v Johnson: letter regarding sale of land, including plan of land, held not to be valid contact: plan signed by both parties but letter only signed by vendor. Typing of purchaser’s name on letter was not signature.
Under LP(MP)A 1989, if essential term is omitted, the contract is void. Unless the term can be seen as a separate agreement
Tootal Clothing v Guinea Properties: Agreement for grant of lease coupled with agreement that tenant would carry out shop fitting works in specific time in return for payment by landlord. Lease granted, tenant carried out works but landlord refused to pay. Landlord attempted to argue there was just 1 contract which failed to incorporate all terms so was invalid. Argument rejected -> two agreements: one for grant of lease & one for works. Issue of works need not have been incorporated in same doc as lease to be enforceable
Omission of essential term from contract makes contract void under LP(MP)A 1989 unless omission seen as mistake. Where convincing evidence parties had agreed upon omitted term, court may order rectification, making contract valid
Wright v Robert Leonard Developments: agreement related to sale of flat and furnishings, but furnishings contained in separate doc to which contract for sale made no ref. On removing furnishings, vendor’s defence was there was no valid contract containing all terms agreed. Argument rejected and contract rectified then enforced
Equity recognises that the purchaser becomes the equitable owner of an estate/interest when contract to purchase is made
Sookraj v Samaroo
When varying a contract relating to freehold estate, whether must comply with s 2 LP(MP)A 1989 depends on nature of term: if material, must comply
McClausland v Duncan Lawrie: completion date set for Sunday was changed in exchange of letters that did not comply with s 2 LP(MP)A 1989. Variation thus ineffective & original agreement stood
If a material term is varied in a contract relating to freehold estate: variation is invalid & original terms stand unless oral variation is so fundamental it amounts to a wholly new agreement in which case the original agreement is considered rescinded
British & Benningtons v NW Chachar Tea
Equity may intervene to give a purchaser an equitable right despite there not being a document compliant with s 2 LP(MP)A 1989 in form of estoppel intervention. Person may bee stopped from asserting true legal position where would be unconscionable to do so: where another has relied and acted upon a promise to their detriment
Yaxley v Gotts: C agreed with D’s father that if father bought house and C conducted building works to convert it into flats, he would be given ground floor flats. D bought house. Unaware of this, C carried out works. When D sought to evict C, court recognised C had interest in property
For valid contract in land to exist, there must be one doc containing all terms and signed by both parties
Commission for the New Towns v Cooper: faxes exchanged amounting to offer and acceptance regarding sale of land. Exchange did not create valid land contract
Freeholder’s rights extend to lower airspace. Invasion is prima facie actionable as trespass
Anchor Brewhouse v Berkley
Freeholder’s rights only extend as far as lower airspace necessary for ordinary use and enjoyment of land. Upper airspace is not owned by them
Bernstein v Skyviews: plane flying over land to take aerial photos was not trespass
Whether a chattel is a fixture depends on degree of annexation test and purpose of annexation test
Holland v Hodgson
If there is no degree of annexation between chattel and land, it is a chattel. Unless due to its own weight it need not be attached: it is deemed to be used in situ and cannot be removed without physical destruction
Elitestone v Morris: wooden bungalows rested on concrete pillars attached to land. Bungalows held to be fixtures
If the purpose of the annexation is to enjoy object as a chattel: it is a chattel
Leigh v Taylor: tapestries attached to wall held to be chattels
If objects positioned so as to improve overall architectural design of property: objects may be fixtures even where no annexation
D’Eyncourt v Gregory: marble statues of lions and garden seats held to be fixtures even though no annexation
In deciding issue of whether item is a fixture or a chattel, look beyond degree and purpose of annexation tests:
Moveability
Lifespan
Damage caused to land when moved
Who installed it? Builder or subcontractor?
Botham v TSB Bank: C owned flat which was mortgaged. When he fell into arrears, bank sought possession and sold property. Q arose as to whether some of contents of flat were fixtures, and thus part of security for debt
When item is found on land, if true owner can be located then the item belongs to him
Moffat v Kazana
Limitation Act 1980: owner has 6 years from date finder assumes rights to claim
If item found on land was found on the surface of the land and the true owner cannot be located, item belongs to finder unless freeholder manifested an intention to control the land and items found on it
Parker v BA Board: C found gold bracelet in executive lounge at airport and BA sold it
If item was found embedded or attached to land and true owner cannot be located, belongs to freeholder
Waverly BC v Fletcher: D unlawfully used metal detector in public park to find gold brooch buried in ground
Apparent distinction exists between lease (mere contractual arrangement) and term of years (proprietary estate)
Bruton v London Quadrant Housing Trust: licencee of block of flats purported to give homeless person licence over one of flats. HL found homeless person to have lease since enjoyed exclusive possession for term at rent
Where agreement satisfies characteristics of lease (exclusive possession, certainty of term, at rent) tenancy found (subject to exceptions). One must look to substance of transaction not just form
Street v Mountford: occupancy based on licence agreement which gave M, in return for weekly licence fee, exclusive occupancy of self contained flat. Despite agreement containing clause stating tenancy was not intended to arise, M found to have tenancy
Rent is not essential for existence of a lease
Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold
Must be certainty of term for lease to exist. Where term appears uncertain, if tenant has taken possession and started paying rent by ref to period, court may imply periodic tenancy
Prudential Assurance v London Residuary Body: tenancy granted over strip of land until such time as required back for purpose of widening road. Whilst held this was uncertain term, HL upheld finding of periodic tenancy
One essential for the certainty of term requirement to be satisfied for existence of lease, must be of fixed and certain duration
Lace v Chantler
Uncertain term is lease for life so converted into term for 90 years under s 149(6) LPA 1925
Mexfield Housing v Berrisford: SC expressed disapproval for requirement of certainty of term. Reasoning for Prudential not deciding was lease for life was because that argument was not raised or considered
When implying a periodic tenancy, the period implied is calculated on the same basis the rent itself is calculated, irrespective of how actually being paid
Martin v Smith
Implying periodic tenancy when there is uncertain term is not automatic: parties intentions considered
Javad v Aqil
Look to nature of accommodation and relationship between occupiers when considering whether clause excluding exclusive possession is real or sham.
All four unities must be present for joint tenancy to arise
Individual lease: each tenant has exclusive possession of defined area with licence to share common parts.
Less weight given to freedom of contract where residential (relating to e.p.)
AG Securities v Vaughan: four separate licence agreements signed on different days relating to occupancy of 4 bed flat. Each agreement stipulated for different payment amounts and each excluded exclusive possession and stipulated sharing with max of 3 other people. Clause was actually exercised. Occupants strangers willing to share. Held to be licences
Look to nature of accommodation when considering whether clause excluding exclusive possession is real or sham.
No magic in retention of keys. Look at purpose for retention
Aslan v Murphy: licence agreement in respect of tiny basement room to which licensor retained keys. Agreement excluded exclusive possession and required occupant to vacate premises for 90 mins each day. Held to be lease
Presence of exclusive possession does not necessitate finding of lease. Exceptions:
Friendship/generosity: no intention to create legal relations
Family
Service as employee
Lodger
Facchini v Bryson
Occupancy based on friendship/generosity where no intention to create legal relations means licence despite presence of exclusive possession
Marcroft Wagins v Smith
Where commercial: equality of bargaining power so courts more prepared to accept subjective intentions of parties and not identify clause excluding exclusive possession as sham due to freedom of contract
National Car Parks v Trinity Development
Occupancy based on family relationships means licence despite exclusive possession
David LB v Lewisham
If occupancy based on family relationship, not necessarily licence despite exclusive possession. Depends on circumstances
Nunn v Dalrymple
Occupancy based on service as employee means licence despite exclusive possession provided purpose of providing accommodation is for better performance of employee’s duties
Norris v Checkersfield
Considerations when deciding whether clause excluding exclusive possession is real or pretence: intended/actual mode of occupation; nature and extent of accommodation provided; relationship between prospective occupiers; course of negotiations
Stribling v Wickham
Where commercial premises: high degrees of control owner retains over land may be inconsistent with occupier having exclusive possession
Esso Petroleum v Fumegrange
Look to nature of accommodation and relationship between occupiers when considering whether clause excluding exclusive possession is real or sham. Signing separate docs will not defeat unity of title provided agreements can be seen as interdependent
Antoniades v Villiers: cohabiting couple signed separate but identical agreements contemporaneously giving them right to occupy small 1 bed flat. Agreement stipulated exclusive possession not granted and licencor had ability to invite others to share. Held to be lease. Clause never exercised. Accommodation too small. Clause never specified max no of people -> unrealistic
