Occupation by Co-Owners Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

Re Buchanan-Woolaston’s Conveyance

A

5 property owners bought piece of land to prevent it being developed. Couldn’t be sold without consent of all owners. Beneficiaries had no rights in the plot of land as held it on a trust to sell, but courts refused sale - there was a purchase for the purpose and the trustees shouldn’t be directed to sell in breach of that.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Bull v Bull

A

Couple bought house, husband’s mother moved in on the basis that she would build extension, notice to quit served on mother. Denning found a purpose trust, purpose to enable couple and mother to live together as long as mother wanted.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

James v Challenger

A

Basic assumption when couple buy property together is that they wanted to provide family home, use of purpose trust became redundant with matrimonial divorce legislation introduced.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Re Ever’s Trust

A

Where unmarried couple buy property the purpose is harder to infer, in general purpose terminates on seperation.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Stack v Dowden

A

Claim for compensation for exclusion from property was awarded but negated as he had failed to pay maintenance to children.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Rodway v Landy

A

Doctor’s surgery and living accommodation were physically seperated.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Manchester Airport v Dutton

A

Somebody who was an exclusive licensee could sue other people in trespass, blurred lines between ownership and non-ownership.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Wood v Leadbitter

A

Racegoer had ticket for races but was ejected, licence could be revoked at any time.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Re Hampstead Garden Suburb Institute

A

Condition read into revocation of licenses that there is an entitlement to a reasonable period of notice.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Winter Gardens v Millenium Productions

A

Case concerned right to sell snacks at theater. Couldn’t be property right as no exclusive possession, held it was a licence supported by contract for a particular length of time, licence couldn’t be revoked in breach of contract.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Errington v Errington

A

If contract is attached to licence it is irrevocable unless in accordance with the contract, doctrine of equitable licences.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Eves v Eves

A

Property was reconstructed with husband’s money. Held wife wouldn’t have devoted to much labour to the property unless she’d been promised some interest. Interest was that husband wouldn’t terminate her right to live there while the relationship continued.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Pascoe v Turner

A

Married man told mistress house they had been living in was hers. Woman spent money on repairs. Represented a detrimental reliance on the agreement that had been made, held to give rise to contractual arrangement, house should be transferred to her.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Verall v Great Yarmouth Borough Council

A

Licence was granted to have political meeting in town hall, council tried to cancel as it would likely cause uproar, court enforced specific performance.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

National Provincial Bank v Ainsworth

A

Denning tried to assert “deserted wife’s equity”, was overturned at House of Lords, held she only had personal licence against her husband. Matrimonial Homes Act enforced Denning’s opinion.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Wroth v Tyler

A

Couple and their children were to move house, wife registered Class F land charge at daughter’s request, prevented completion and put husband in breach of contract. Husband ended up being bankrupted.

17
Q

Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold & Co

A

Court of Appeal decided that contractual licence couldn’t be a property right, if a contract is only binding between contracting parties, contractual licence only binding between contracting parties.

18
Q

Plimmer v Wellington Corporation

A

Privy Council decision - estoppel could attach to licence to create proprietary effect.

19
Q

Ives v High

A

Property in Norwich was redeveloped, foundations encroached on neighbouring property. Neighbour allowed access over property to garage. Garage was built in reliance. Held that there was estoppel.

20
Q

Birmingham Midshires v Sabherwal

A

Home was bought for Mrs S, her two sons and their wives with family assets and a mortgage. Sons took out loan against house and defaulted. Mrs S had an interest but it was overreached.

21
Q

Binions v Evans

A

Cottage was sold on condition that Mrs E be allowed to stay rent free for life. Held that there was a lease for life, but under the Settled Land Act 1925 the freehold should be vested in tenants for life, so Mrs E was entitled to the freehold. Obviously unintended. Modern position would vest legal estate in builder, on trust for Mrs E for life.

22
Q

Barclay v Barclay

A

No occupation right if sale is genuinely intended. Where parents die and leave property to children normal assumption is sale.