Notesale: Turn your study into money

Document Preview

Extracts from the notes are below, to see the PDF you'll receive please use the links above

---

Chapter 1: Registered Titles
Nature and Purpose of the System of Registered Land
1) To reduce the expense and effort of purchasing land by eliminating the lengthy
and formalistic process of investigating ‘root of title’
2) Reduce dangers facing a purchaser who is buying land from a person whose title
is unsafe
3) Ensure that a purchaser of land knows about the rights and interests of other
persons over that land, ensuring that price paid reflects its true economic and
social value
4) Enable purchaser to buy land completely free of certain types of interests over
that land
5) Provide a mechanism whereby third-party rights can be protected

3 Concepts
Mirror Principle (Title by registration)
Curtain Principle (Equitable interest not registered)
Indemnity Principle
1) Mirror Principle
The idea that register should reflect totality of the rights and interests concerning a
title of registered land
...
Mirror
principle does not operate fully due to the existence of “unregistered interests that
override” under Sch 1 and 3 LRA 2002
...

2) Curtain Principle
The idea that certain equitable interests in land should be hidden behind the curtain of
a special type of trust
...
He need not look behind the curtain of trust or worry about any
equitable rights of ownership
...
Interests of equitable owners are not
completely destroyed as the process of overreaching operates to transfer rights of
equitable owner from land to money that purchaser has just paid for it
...


3) Indemnity Principle
The idea that if a title is duly registered, it is guaranteed by the State
...
The state insures against inaccuracies
or other mistakes in the register
...
g
...
Landlord creates a lease of 10 years for tenant
...
If vendor sells to purchaser, purchaser has
2 months to register
s7: Non-registration would render transaction void, title reverts to transferor
s27: Legal estate/interest can only be conveyed if completed by registration
(2): Dispositions required to be completed by registration
(a) Transfer
(b) Lease of more than 7 years
(d) Interest defined in s1(2) LPA 1925
(f) Charges/Mortgages
s29: Effect of registered dispositions
(1): Purchaser for valuable consideration of registered title takes free of minor
interest not duly protected by entry into the register
(2): Priority of interest that are protected against successors in title (e
...
Purchaser,
Mortgagee)
(a)(i) Registered charge or notice
(ii) Interest that falls within Sch 3 LRA 2002
s32: Notice can be entered in relation to registered estate or charge affected
s33: Interest that cannot be protected by notice
(a)(i) Interest under a trust of land
(b) Leasehold estate granted for a term of 3 years or less and is not required to be
registered

s40: Beneficiary may enter a restriction may prohibiting making of an entry of the
disposition either indefinitely, for a specified period or until occurrence of a specified
event
Schedule 1: Unregistered interests which override first registration
Schedule 3: Unregistered interests which override registered dispositions
Para 1: Leases for a term not exceeding 7 years
Para 2: Proprietary interest and in actual occupation
Para 3: Impliedly created legal easements
(1)(a): Not within actual knowledge of purchaser
(b): Would not have been obvious on a reasonably careful inspection of land
*Types of interests which are not protected by entry into register yet still binds
purchasers are interest that override first registration or registered dispositions

Classes of Land Charges
Land Charges Act 1972
Class A Land Charge
s2(2) LCA 1972: A right arising from an Act of Parliament to receive money from
estate owner where the right requires an application by the person entitled
Class B Land Charge
s2(3) LCA 1972: A right to receive money from estate owner arising automatically by an
Act of Parliament without the need for application by the person entitled
Class C (i) Land Charge
s2(4)(i) LCA 1972: Puisne Mortgage (Second or subsequent mortgage)
Class C (ii) Land Charge
s2(4)(ii) LCA 1972: Limited Owner’s Charge (equitable charge acquired by a tenant for
life or statutory owner under the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 or under any other statute
by reason of the discharge by him of any capital transfer tax or other liabilities and to
which special priority is given by statute)
Class C (iii) Land Charge
s2(4)(iii) LCA 1972: General Equitable Charge (any equitable charge which is not
secured by a deposit of documents relating to the legal estate and does not arise under
a trust of land or settlement and is not a charge by way of indemnity and is not
included as any other class of land charge)

Class C (iv) Land Charge
s2(4)(iv) LCA 1972: Estate Contracts (includes a contract for the transfer of the legal
estate, options to purchase and contract for a right of pre-emption)
Class D (i) Land Charge
s2(5)(i) LCA 1972: Inland Revenue Charge
Class D (ii) Land Charge
s2(5)(ii) LCA 1972: Restrictive Covenants (only those entered on or after 1st January
1926
...
g Deed
not executed)
Grantor only owns equitable estate/interest OR if interest only exist in
equity

(v)

Interest that arise by way of constructive trust or by way of proprietor
estoppel (These interests arise through conduct of the parties and not as a
result of the execution of documents)

Land Charges Register
Rights which are equitable must be protected by way of registration against the name
of the proprietor
Failure to register the interest, the interest will not be valid against successors in title
of the land
Purchaser of unregistered title/land will be bound by equitable interest as they will
have notice of such interest registered as a land charge
...
Appellant Mrs Caine bought and
registered the land charge in the name of Frank David Blackburn
...

Mr Carrick mortgaged the property to Lloyds Bank but failed to keep up repayments
...
If overreaching applies, occupier of a property cannot claim
their occupation of the property is an overriding interest
...
Marriage broke down and wife moved out but would return
to look after their children and stay the night when husband is away
...
He arranged for inspection at a time
when he knew house would be vacant
...
Husband said she moved out months ago
...
Discrepancy between what
Mr Tizard stated on his application form and what agent found when he inspected the
property put lenders on notice
...
Inspection was inadequate since it was at a prearranged time

3) Imputed Notice
Kingsnorth Finance v Tizard (1986)
Where purchaser employs an agent for the transaction, actual or constructive notice
received by the agent is imputed to the principal
s199(1)(ii)(b) LPA 1925: Rules restricted to notice acquired in the same transaction

4 elements for Doctrine of Notice to operate
1)
2)
3)
4)

Purchaser of legal estate
Purchaser for valuable consideration
Good faith
Without notice

1) Purchaser of legal estate
Not necessary to show that he had acquired the legal estate, suffices if he has
obtained any type of legal estate in the land (e
...
Lease, Mortgage) as opposed to
equitable interest in the land

2) Purchaser for valuable consideration
s205(1)(xix) LPA 1925: Purchaser means a person acquiring an interest or charge on
property for money or money’s worth
...


3) Good faith
Midland Bank v Green (1981)
Farmer granted option to purchase his farm to his son
...
Wife died and through a will,
left the farm equally to her sons and daughters, including the claimant
Option to purchase should have been registered under LCA 1972
...
Requirement that they honestly did not know of the
interest and not that they wilfully chose to ignore it
Lord Wilberforce: Equity required not only absence of notice, but genuine and honest
absence of notice
...
Bank knew about the
family circumstances
...
Wife applied to have
the charge set aside
Application failed
...
Court rejected bank’s contention that actual knowledge was required but
accepted that bank was not put on notice of husband’s intention to defeat wife’s claim

Chapter 3: Co-Ownership
Types of co-ownership in land

Joint Tenancy

Tenancy in Common

Importance of Co-ownership
1) Land is at times not owned by one single owner
2) More than 1 person having interest in land
3) Family or matrimonial home issues

Joint Tenancy
a)
b)
c)
d)

There can only be a joint tenancy if ‘4 unities’ are present
The right of survivorship
Co-owners are each entitled to the whole of co-owned land
Severance is possible

4 Unities
1) Unity in possession
All joint tenants must be equally entitled to possess the whole of co-owned land
...
In the eyes of the law, there is only one formal title and this
title is jointly owned by all joint tenants

Severance
A property has both a

Legal Title (Legal interest)
Equitable Title (Equitable interest)

*Severance can only occur at equity
...
Upon realizing that husband was about
to die, she destroyed the notice upon delivery so husband never read the notice before
his death
Notice was effectively served when delivered
Re 88 Berkeley Road (1971)
Wife sent husband notice to sever joint tenancy
...
Husband was killed in a car crash before hearing of the issue
The intention to sever the joint tenancy did not take effect immediately, as such the
joint tenancy was not severed

At common law
Williams v Hensman (1861)
1) Severance by an act operating on joint tenant’s own share
(i)

Sale of his own share

(ii)

(iii)

Mortgaging his own share
First National Securities Ltd v Hegerty (1985)
Husband and wife were joint tenants of matrimonial home
...
Husband took the money and fled abroad
...
This could be seen as an act of an individual acting upon their
own share
...
Therefore, lender was entitled to a
legal charge over the property enforceable by way of an order for
application for sale
Bankruptcy
Re Dennis (1992)
Property held in joint names
...
Wife died and a month
later husband was made bankrupt
Act of bankruptcy did not operate as an involuntary act to sever the joint
tenancy and bankrupt inherited the jointly held property
...
Both orally agreed that female’s share would be sold to male
No severance
...
Relationship broke down and in
agreement in principle they decided to separate, each taking one of the
properties
...

As joint tenancy had not been severed, wife entitled to right of survivorship
...
They play an administrative
role with regards to property (Particular purpose of property/When property
should be sold)

2) New Law
Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996
A) Powers and Duties of Trustees
s6(1): Trustees have powers of absolute owners
s6(2): Power to force beneficiaries to take conveyance of land
s6(3): Power to buy/lease/mortgage land
s7: Power to partition the land
s10: Duty to seek consent
s11: Duty to consult beneficiaries
s13: Exclude and restrict right of beneficiary to occupy
(1): Trustee may exclude or restrict right of occupation of any one or more (not all)
beneficiaries
(5): Impose on beneficiary to pay for expenses on land
(6): Impose on beneficiary to pay compensation payment to those beneficiaries whose
entitlement has been excluded or restricted
B) Rights of Beneficiaries
s10: Right to have consent sought
s11: Right to be consulted
s12: Right to occupy trust property (Unless unavailable or unsuitable)

s14: Application for order for sale or postponement of sale (Beneficiaries, trustees,
creditors, trustee in property can apply)
s15(1): Factors to be considered in considering application for order for sale or
postponement of sale
(a): Intentions of person creating the trust
(b): Purposes of property
Re Buchanan-Wollaston’s Conveyance (1939)
Owners of land with sea views purchased the strip of land separating all of their houses
from the sea, such that their view of sea would remain unrestricted
...
If the purpose of property no longer subsists, court
may order a sale of the property
(c): Welfare of minor
(d): Interests of secured creditor or any beneficiaries
Mortgage Corporation v Shaire (2001)
Mrs Shaire and MR Fox jointly owned a house as tenants in common
...
His mortgagee sought an order for sale
There was no longer a presumption of sale, court has a wider discretion to protect
families from mortgagees
...
g
...
Trust allows a property to be split into
legal and equitable titles
...
s53(1) LPA 1925: Express declaration must be
manifested and proved by some writing as purely oral declaration alone is not enough

Implied Creation of Trust
Resulting Trust
Law will consider facts of the case and then conclude if there is a resulting trust that
can be presumed
...
Providing direct contribution to purchase price of house
Burns v Burns (1984)
Cohabitants for 19 years, woman took man’s name and she went beyond taking on usual
household duties but made no direct financial contribution to the house
...
Parkes bought the house and Curley contributed
nothing to the purchase price
...
The payments were made by Curley after the property was purchased,
hence taken not intended to have legal consequences and Curley had not directly
contributed to purchase price

Midland Bank v Cooke (1995)
Matrimonial home was in the sole name of Mr Cooke
...
Mrs Cooke did
not contribute to purchase price nor mortgage payments but she did discharge
household bills
...
Mr Cooke remortgaged the house to secure his business debts and bank asked Mrs Cooke to sign a
consent form postponing interest she held to the bank
...
Mrs Cooked claimed to be
entitled to beneficial interest in property and claimed to have signed the consent form
under undue influence
Mrs Cooke was entitled to 50% of the beneficial interest

Constructive Trust
Lloyds Bank v Rosset (1989)
Mr Rosset is the sole registered proprietor and only financial contributor to a shared
estate, secured a loan against that estate
...
Mr Rosset defaulted on payments and bank sought
repossession of the property
Bank’s claim was successful
...
Claimant fell pregnant and took on defendant’s name
...
They purchased a house in defendant’s name
alone
...
Purchase price was
contributed by him and a mortgage
...
When divorce came through, they agreed to marry but didn’t
...
Mr Edwards told claimant who was pregnant with his child that her name
should not be added to the legal title as it may affect her divorce
...
There was
a common intention that she was to have a share in the property

b) Inferred common intention from payments
Lloyds Bank v Rosset (1989)
Lord Bridge: Direct contribution to purchase price or payment of mortgage instalments

c) Inferred common intention from parties’ course of conduct
Stack v Dowden (2007)
Cohabitants purchased a house in their joint names but made no declaration as to
entitlement of beneficial interest in the property
...
Ms Dowden also paid majority of the utility bills
Starting point for determining beneficial interests where legal title was held jointly is
that beneficial interest will also be held jointly
...
Claimant agreed to help him with several property development
projects and defendant promised their marriage and a dream home
...
They lived in the property
together before relationship broke down
Detrimental reliance could be proven even if the actions are motivated by love and
affection
...
She had
detrimentally relied on that common intention when she left her job and moved to
England
...
No provision was made
for Ms Cooke, who then worked without payment for 27 years
Ms Cooke could remain living in the property
...
It has
a wider scope than promissory estoppel
Proprietary Estoppel can be used both as a defence and cause of action
Promissory Estoppel can only be used as a defence
Dillwyn v Llewelyn (1862)
Claimant son relied on an informal memorandum that he will obtain rights in his father’s
land
...
Late father’s estate refused son an interest
in the land
Estate was estopped from denying the interest as the son spent money in reliance to
the informal memorandum
Jennings v Rice (2002)
Claimant worked as handyman for Rice
...
Rice promises that her house and furniture would become claimant’s on her
death
...
Proprietary estoppel
allows the court to award minimum equity to do justice

Conditions/Requirements for Proprietary Estoppel
Willmott v Barber (1880)
Barber was the tenant of 3 acres of land
...
Barber also granted Willmott an option to purchase
Barber’s lease of 3 acres to which Willmott sought to exercise the option
...
Landlord
refused to give consent and Barber refused to assign the lease to Willmott
...
He relied on estoppel on the basis that landlord allowed
Barber to spend money on the land in mistaken belief that he would be able to exercise
the option
Court would not force a defendant to act in breach of covenant
Fry J: 5 probanda of proprietary estoppel
1) Claimant must have made a mistake as to his legal rights
2) Claimant must have performed acts in reliance on this mistake

3) Defendant must know of the existence of his own right (which is inconsistent with
claimant’s mistake)
4) Defendant must know of claimant’s mistake
5) Defendant must have encouraged claimant’s mistake
Taylors Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees Ltd (1982)
Claimants were tenants of defendant, purported to have an option to renew the lease
...
Claimants claimed to have substantially
improved the lot on assumption that they had a right to renew the lease
Defendant had done nothing to encourage first claimant to make the improvements
...
Claimant left
defendant and told her she could have the house but never formally transferred the
title
...
He was aware of the expenditures and her belief but did nothing
Defendant could remain in the house and was entitled to have the title transferred to
her through proprietary estoppel
*Active assurance
Gillett v Holt (2000)
Mr Gillett left school at 15 and has been working on Mr Holt’s farm ever since
...
Mr Gillett accepted low wage, worked long
hours
...
Son built it at his own expense
and moved into the bungalow
...
His expenditure of money on the land at his
father’s encouragement raised an equity which was satisfied by granting a license for
life
Lord Denning: Even though there was no binding contract to grant any particular
interest to the licensee, court could look at circumstances to see whether there is an
equity arising out of expenditure of money
*Active assurance by conduct

Detrimental Reliance
Greasley v Cooke (1980)
Cooke moved into Greasley household to become a maid for free on assurance that she
would have a home for life following the deaths of Greasleys
...
Reliance may be assumed where a claimant
acts to their detriment
Wayling v Jones (1995)
Claimant acted as defendant’s chauffeur for pocket money, following assurances that
he would inherit defendant’s business to which claimant and defendant were partners in
...
He has acted to his detriment
...
They entered into an oral agreement
covering the core terms of the negotiations
...
Following this, Yeoman’s demanded an increased upfront
payment
When Cobbe made the planning application, his expectation was that he would then sit
down with Yeoman’s to agree the outstanding contractual terms to be incorporated into
the formal written contract, not that he would be entitled to ‘a certain interest in land’

Hopper v Hopper (2008)
Unconscionability means whether in all circumstances, landowner can resile from the
assurance he has given and on which claimant has relied to detriment

Remedies
1) Transfer of legal title
Pascoe v Turner (1979)
Husband left wife for a mistress
...

Husband wished to attain possession of the house, wife claimed that house was hers
Claim for possession by husband failed
...
No provision was made
for Ms Cooke, who then worked without payment for 27 years
Ms Cooke could remain living in the property
...
Couple spent money improving the property
They were entitled to the return of the money spent improving the property
4) Charge over the house
Campbell v Griffin (2001)
Claimant moved in with a much older couple as a lodger
...
They promised him he could live in the house for
the rest of his life
...
Husband
died and land was passed to his wife under right of survivorship
...
Oral evidences can be challenged as it is not
conclusive and are uncertain
...

- Channelling Function
It ensures that transactions are done by the legally prescribed way
...


Proprietary Estoppel and Constructive Trust
Yaxley v Gotts (2000)
Claimant made oral agreement with defendant that he would refurbish and convert a
house belonging to defendant into flats and in return claimant would own the ground
floor flat
...
Estoppel should not be used to circumvent a statute,
however, where there was a finding of estoppel there would also be a constructive
trust
...
It creates both a
control and a proprietary right
Lease can be created in two stages:
1
...
Execution of contract by the grant of a lease by deed
Where a lease is created without first concluding a separate contract to grant it, the
lease itself amounts to a contract between them

Defining Lease
Street v Mountford (1985)
Street granted Mountford the right to occupy two rooms in his house, with exclusive
possession, for a weekly rent and terminable on a 14 days’ notice
...

Mountford sought declaration that agreement constituted a lease
Agreement was a lease
...
There were separate beds within the flat but landlord
knew they were to live together as husband and wife as he supplied a double bed at
their request
A lease was created as all three parties intended that exclusive possession should be
given to the couple

AG Securities v Vaughan (1990)
AG licensed each of 4 rooms in the property to separate individuals under separate
agreements
Four unities necessary for a joint tenancy as not satisfied, it was therefore a license
Crancour v De Silvaesa
Agreement described occupation as licenses
...
Occupants argued agreement was a
tenancy
Agreement was license not lease
Facchini v Bryson (1952)
Employer entered into agreement with his assistant which allowed assistant to occupy a
house in return for weekly rent
...
Agreement stated it was not a tenancy
Agreement created a lease rather than a license
Aslan v Murphy (1990)
Agreement stated that licensor was unwilling to grant licensee exclusive possession of
any part of the room and licensor may permit others to use the room
...
However, in practice no others were permitted to enter the
room and no services were actually provided
Held to be a sham licence designed to avoid landlord and tenant legislation
Marcroft Wagons Ltd v Smith (1952)
Owner allowed a deceased tenant’s daughter to remain in occupation of house
...

Daughter paid a fee in return for the occupation and claimed to have a lease as she had
exclusive possession
There was no lease
...
He offered him accommodation and
extended his employment to coach driver
...
Lease was said to last until the
land was required for further development
Lease was void as prospective certainty is required in certain duration of a lease
s149(3) LPA 1925: Term can commence at a future date but not more than 21 years
from the date of the lease
s149(6) LPA 1925: Lease for life or until marriage is to take effect as a lease for 90
years

Rent
Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold (1989)
Arnold occupied premises for running a retail outlet
...
Arnold sold his lease to Matlodge and was permitted to
remain in occupation rent free until given a quarter’s notice to quit
...
The giving of quarter’s notice was sufficiently certain
Mikeover v Brady (1989)
Agreement required the payment of separate rents
The term was a sham, in reality occupants were responsible for the other’s rent in full
s205(1)(xxvii) LPA 1925: Terms of years means a term of years whether or not at a
rent
Bostock v Bryant (1990)
Rent need not be in monetary form but amount must be capable of being rendered
certain
...
s
...
Tenant must be paying best rent
Fitzkriston v Panayi (2008)
New landlord wanted to remove existing occupier
...
New landlord argued that the tenancy was not binding
Rent payable was not best rent for the property, valuation evidence showed
market rent to be between £12,000 and £20,000 per annum
...
s53 LPA 1925: Must be created by deed
(s1 Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989: A deed must be
signed and witnessed by one other person)
3) Leases over seven years
a
...
Must be created by deed and registered to take effect at law

Events Triggering Registration
1) Grant/Transfer of a registrable lease
s4(2) LRA 2002: Qualifying estate is an unregistered legal estate which is a
leasehold estate for a term which has more than 7 years to run
s4(4)(b) LRA 2002: Registration requirement does not apply to an
assignment/surrender of a lease to the owner of the immediate reversion where the
term is to merge in that reversion
2) Transfer of an unregistered lease with more than 7 years to run
s4(1)(a) LRA 2002: Registration requirement for a transfer of a qualifying estate

s4(2) LRA 2002: A qualifying estate is an unregistered legal estate which is a
leasehold estate for a term with more than 7 years left to run
3) Voluntary first registration of lease with more than 7 years left to run, or a
lease for a discontinuous term
s3(3) LRA 2002: Voluntary registration may only be made if the estate was granted
for a term of which more than 7 years are unexpired
s3(4) LRA 2002: Above does not apply i

---