Land Flashcards
Strand Securities
need both interest and occupation- overriding interests- RT
city of London v flegg
need physical presence- overriding interests- RT
Chhokpar v Chhokpar
temporary absences dont destroy actual occupation- RT- overriding
Link lending v Bustard
in the absence of occupation, continuing intention to return is important- RT- overriding
lloyds bank v rosset
doctrine of notice- applies to interests of beneficiary in a trust of land- eg if someone contributes to mortgage payments (such as in this case)- UT
kingsnorth v Tizard
occupation doesnt need to be continuous or uninterrupted- UT- doctrine of notice
hunt v luck
inspection is necessary- doctrine of notice- UT
midland bank trust v green
purchasers actual knowledge of prior interests is immaterial- registrable as land charges- if not registered as a land charge it is void against money or moneys worth- UT
oak cooperative building society v blackburn
registration against a fair approximation of the correct name (Frank David Blackburn) is effective against a person who doesnt search at all or who searches against an incorrect version of the name (Francis Davis Blackburn) — actual name was Francis David Blackburn - UT- registrable
easement problem question
- identification of the right
- is the right capable of being an easement? - re ellenborough park
- has it been granted/reserved?
- start with express
- then implied
- then prescribed
what is an easement?
a right benefitting a piece of land (dominant tenement) that is enjoyed over land owned by someone else (servient tenement)
how do we know an easement is legal? conditions?
s1(2) LPA
to be legal the easement must be created
- by deed expressly or impliedly
- and for an interest equivalent to freehold or leasehold- s1(2)(A)
re ellenborough park
4 criteria for a right to exist as an easement
- there must be a dominant and a servient tenement
- the easement must accommodate the dominant tenement
- the dominant and servient tenements must not be owned and occupied by the same person
- the easement must be capable of being granted by deed
peacock v custins
- dominant and servient tenement
-must be land for the benefit of which the easement exists and land over which it is exercisable - farmer claimed the right to use a right of way to access a field that was not included at the time of the original grant- couldn’t do it as the extent of the right was determined by reference to the land referred to in the original conveyance
Pugh v savage
- the dominant and servient land doesnt need to be adjoined but they should be close enough to establish a connection
- easement must accommodate the dominant tenement- must bestow some benefit to the land itself
the easement must be capable of forming the subject matter of the grant
3 main requirements
- right claimed must be sufficiently definite
- right must be within the general nature of rights
- must be a capable grantor and grantee
rights must be within the general nature of rights
choose relevant ones from this list
- cannot impose a duty/make the servient owner pay money (Regis property v redman)
- cant take anything away from the land except water (race v ward)
- cannot give exclusive/joint/substantially permanent possession of the servient land (wright v macadam)
- negative easements are unlikely to be recognised by the courts- ie one that restricts the activities of the servient owner- only ones recognised are those of light, air and support
express reservation or grant
- by reservation in the conveyance on sale of the land owned by the seller (land sold being the servient and the land retained being dominant)
- or by deed granting the right to the dominant owner and his successors in title
reservation of an easement
- no easements will be implied in favour of the grantor- must do it expressly if he wishes to reserve any easements
UNLESS - necessity- implied in favour of a seller who has sold the land surrounding his house and the right of way is necessary to get to his land- Sweet v Summer
- common intention
implied grant of an easement 3 circs
- necessity/common intention- Wong v Beaumont
- s62 LPA 1925
- Wheeldon v burrows
(easements) S62 when to use and conditions
- use when there is a landlord and tenant
- meant to be a word saving provision- existing easements transfer automatically- wright v macadam
conditions - must be a conveyance
- cant be owned and occupied by same person
- capable of being an easement
Wheeldon and burrows- when to use
quasi easement- when there is a sale of part of the land
3 conditions
- continuous (reasonable habitual enjoyment) and apparent (common sense you should have it)
- necessary for reasonable enjoyment (inconvenient to have to do something to change the right)
- in use at the time of the sale (reasonably proximate time scale before the sale)
presumed grant (prescription)
- need at least 20+ years of use
- needs to be as of right (without force, without secrecy, without permission)
- go straight to prescription act
covenant problem question
- state the covenant and nature of interest- mention covenants are enforceable as a matter of contract
- look at running of the benefit and burden- what has been passed on
- can the restrictive covenant be discharged/released
running of the benefit- common law- 4 conditions - covenant
- covenant must touch and concern the land- smith and snipes hall farm
- there must be an intent that the benefit should run with the land (look for express intention- “successors in title” if none, s78 LPA implied intention)
- at the time of the covenant the covenantee must have held a legal estate in the land
- the person claiming to enforce the covenant must derive the title from or under the original covenantee
running of the benefit- equity- 3 ways to do it - Cov
- annexation- express/implied/statutory
express- the wording of the covenant needs to say it is for the benefit of named land (if this is there dont discuss other methods)- rogers v hosegood
mention implied but then go straight to statutory
statutory- federated homes case - express assignment
- by scheme of development
federated homes case
s78 LPA has the effect of automatically annexing the benefit to land if
- covenants touched and concerned the land
- land is identifiable
- must be no contrary intention
running of the burden- common law- Cov
the burden cannot pass to successors UNLESS
- you are leasing instead of selling it freehold (relying on the enforceability of covenants between landlords and tenants)
- by a chain of indemnity contracts- always relevant if it is a positive covenant
- doctrine of mutual benefit and burden- cant have the benefit without complying with a corresponding obligation
halsall v brizell
wanted a right of way without having to pay maintenance towards it- cant do it cuz of the doctrine of mutual benefit and burden
running of the burden- equity- covenants
tulk v moxhay
4 requirements
- Cov must be restrictive in substance
- covenantee must at the time of the creation of the Cov have owned land for protection of which the Cov is made- LCC v Allen- Cov wasn’t binding because LCC hadn’t owned the land
- burden must be intended to run with the land
- owner of the servient tenement must have notice for it to bind them
releasing/discharging restrictive covenants
unity of seisin- if the benefited and burdened land is owned by the same person all covs are extinguished
inconsistent usage- if a wholly inconsistent usage is allowed over a long period of time their right to enforce is lost
deed of release
discharge- s84 LPA- only restrictive
essential requirements for a lease
- must confer on the tenant an exclusive right to possess the land
- and be for a fixed, ascertainable period
- and comply with the appropriate formalities
street v mountford
- granted a licence
- but they had exclusive possession
- so it was a lease- didnt matter the intention
lace v chandler
lease granted for the duration of the war
- wasnt a lease as that’s not a fixed period
formalities for a lease over 3 years
- granted by deed
- S2 LPMPA 89 requirements
- to assign the lease a deed is required- crago v Julian
formalities for a lease under 3 years
dont need a deed as long as
- 3 years or less
- takes effect in possession (move in immediately)
- at the best rent reasonably obtainable (market value)
- no fine is taken (if a premium/lump sum is paid it doesnt apply)
how an equitable lease can arise
- parties have entered into an agreement for a lease but haven’t granted one by deed
- parties have attempted to create a legal lease but one or more of the formalities haven’t been complied with
- in these circs- walsh v Lonsdale- if the contractual formalities have been satisfied then parties may seek specific performance in the courts and may be granted a legal lease
2 types of lease
periodic tenancy- “yearly lease”- determine it by the notice to quit- if it is at lease a month then it will be a monthly tenancy
fixed period- can end earlier than specified if
- surrender (t yields lease to L)
- merger (t buys the estate or a third party buys both)
- forfeiture
- break clause
