Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  









Land - From: 1970 To: 1979

This page lists 155 cases, and was prepared on 19 December 2014.


 
 West Midland Baptist (Trust) Association (Inc) -v- Birmingham Corporation; HL 1970 - [1970] AC 874; [1969] 3 All ER 172

 
 Holmes -v- Cowcher; ChD 1970 - [1970] 1 WLR 834
 
Barclay -v- Barclay [1970] 2 QB 677
1970


Land, Trusts

1 Citers


 
Redbridge London Borough Council v Jaques [1970] 1 WLR 1604
1970

Lord Parker CJ
Land
An authority cannot authorise an unlawful restriction on the use of land subject to a public right of way.
1 Citers


 
Eagling -v- Gardner [1970] 2 All ER 838
1970


Land
Introductory words in a covenant in a conveyance of land such as 'to the intent that such covenant shall enure for the benefit of and be annexed to the remainder of the . . . Estate . . .' are words of express annexation, but they are also not inconsistent with the establishment of a building scheme.
1 Citers


 
Manchester Corporation -v- Connolly [1970] Ch 420
1970
CA
Lord Diplock
Planning, Land, Litigation Practice
The local authority sought to use an injunction to assist in enforcing planning controls. The court had no power to make an interlocutory order for possession. Lord Diplock: "The writ of possession was originally a common law writ (although it is now regulated, as I say, by Ord. 45 r.3) under which it was ordered that the plaintiff recover possession of the land. Like other common law remedies it did not act in personam against the defendant. It authorised the executive power as represented by the sheriff to do certain things, perform certain acts, in this particular case to evict from land persons who are there and deliver possession of the land to the plaintiff. "
1 Citers



 
 In re Dolphin's Conveyance; ChD 1970 - [1970] 2 All ER 664; [1970] Ch 654; [1970] 3 WLR 31

 
 Irani Finance Ltd -v- Singh; CA 1970 - [1971] Ch 59; [1970] 3 All ER 199
 
Chung Khiaw Bank -v- United Overseas Bank [1970] AC 767
1970


Land
A judgment creditor who obtains a charging order against his debtor's property can take only such interest as the debtor has in the property.
1 Citers


 
Pugh -v- Savage [1970] 2 QB 373; [1970] EWCA Civ 9; [1970] 2 WLR 634; [1970] 2 All ER 353; (1970) 21 P & CR 242
14 Jan 1970
CA
Harman, Salmon
Land, Landlord and Tenant
The enjoyment of an easement by a succession of tenants is sufficient to create a right by prescription for the landlord.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
In Re St Peter's, Bushey Heath [1971] 1 WLR 357
26 Oct 1970
Conc
G. H. Newsom Q.C.
Ecclesiastical, Land
cw Ecclesiastical Law - Faculty - Secular purpose - Use of unconsecrated curtilage of church - Jurisdiction to grant faculty
A faculty was sought for the grant of a right of way easement over unconsecrated land, but within the curtilage of the church. Held: Such an easement could be granted, but the land itself must remain the property of the incumbent. Private rights of way should be granted only after full and open argument. The only way to grant an easement over consecrated land is through an Act of parliament or a church measure.
1 Cites

[ lip ]

 
 Saunders (Executrix of the Will of Rose Maude Gallie, Deceased) -v- Anglia Building Society; HL 9-Nov-1970 - [1971] AC 1004; [1970] UKHL 5
 
Willson and Another -v- Greene and Another [1971] 1 WLR 635
10 Nov 1970
ChD
Mr Justice Foster
Land, Contract
A plot of land had been originally sold after being pegged out, but the conveyance plan differed from the line pegged out. The land was again sold with a plan on both contract and conveyance still being incorrect. In each case the plan had been used 'for identification purposes only', and the purchaser knew the layout of the actual boundary. Held: Since the plans were used for identification purposes only, and the parties knew of the actual position of the boundary, the court was entitled to take into account the surrounding circumstances to construe the contract. The actual layout on the land prevailed.
1 Cites

[ lip ]
 
Brunner -v- Greenslade [1971] Ch 993
1971


Land

1 Citers



 
 Gotobed -v- Pridmore; CA 1971 - (1971) EG 759
 
Barstow and Others -v- Rothwell Urban District Council (1971) 22 P&CR 942
1971


Land

1 Citers


 
North Sydney Printing Property Ltd -v- Sobemo Investment Co. Ltd [1971] NSWLR 150
1971

Hope J
Commonwealth, Land
(Supreme Court of New South Wales in Equity) A company sold part of its land, which abutted on to a street. The retained land had no access to a highway, but the company intended subsequently to sell it to the local authority as an addition to a contiguous car park owned by that authority. The proposed sale to the local authority went off, and the company was left with its retained land, which was landlocked. The company then sought a declaration that its retained land had a way of necessity over the land sold. The company contended that it was entitled to a way of necessity by virtue of public policy, and that the intention of the parties was irrelevant. The purchaser contended that public policy was irrelevant, and that the company was entitled to no right of way, since the intention of the parties was that the company should have no such right. Held: The claim failed. A way of necessity arises to give effect to an actual or presumed intention. On the facts the company's intention was the contrary: its intention was that the land retained should have no access over the land conveyed, but instead should have access over the car park.
1 Citers



 
 Allan's Trustes -v- Lord Advocate; HL 1971 - 1971 SC (HL) 45; [1970] UKHL 7; [1970] TR 417; 1971 SLT 62

 
 Wilson -v- Liverpool Corporation; CA 1971 - [1971] 1 WLR 302

 
 Cuckmere Brick Co Ltd -v- Mutual Finance Ltd; CA 1971 - [1971] Ch 949; [1971] 2 All ER 633; [1971] EWCA Civ 9; (1971) 22 P & CR 624; [1971] 2 WLR 1207

 
 Southwark London Borough Council -v- Williams; CA 1971 - [1971] 1Ch 734; [1971] 2 All ER 175; [1971] 2 WLR 467

 
 Coleen Properties Ltd -v- Minister of Housing and Local Government; CA 1971 - [1971] 1 All ER 1049; (1971) 1 WLR 433
 
Tehidy Minerals Ltd -v- Norman [1971] 2 QB 528
1971
CA
Buckley LJ
Land, Limitation
The fact that land had been requisitioned by the Ministry of Agriculture between 1941 and 1960 and the 20-odd years’ user relied on as having created the rights had preceded 1941 was a bar to a prescriptive claim to grazing rights under the Prescription Act 1832 but not at common law. Discussing Angus v Dalton, applying the doctrine of lost modern grant: "where there has been upwards of 20 years' uninterrupted enjoyment of an easement, such enjoyment having the necessary qualities to fulfil the requirements of prescription, then unless, for some reason . . the existence of such a grant is impossible, the law will adopt a legal fiction that such a grant was made, in spite of any direct evidence that no such grant was in fact made."
Prescription Act 1832
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 National Westminster Bank Ltd -v- Allen; ChD 1971 - [1971] 2 QB 718

 
 Giles -v- County Building Constructors (Hertford) Limited; ChD 1971 - (1971) 22 P&CR 978
 
F T Challinor -v- Stone Rural District Cuncil Ref/161/1971
1972
LT
JR Laird
Land

1 Citers


 
Hutton -v- Esher Urban District Council [1972] 3 All ER 504
1972
ChD

Land
The council sought to build a sewer. It had power to acquire land for this purpose, and sought to acquire the plaintiff's bungalow. He argued that the word land did not include a building on land.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Grigsby -v- Melville & Another [1972] 1 WLR 1355; [1973] 1 All ER 385
1972
ChD
Brightman J
Land
A purchaser of a house above a cellar sought an injunction to support his assertion that a cellar which was served by an access only from the defendant seller's retained property had been included in the conveyance of 'all that dwellinghouse' Held: The right asserted by the seller to use the premises as a store gave, in effect, an exclusive right of user over the whole of the servient tenement, and was not to be supported. The cellar had been included in the sale.
1 Citers


 
Lee-Parker -v- Izzett (2) [1972] 1 WLR 775; [1972] All ER 800
1972

Goulding J
Land, Contract
A contract was exchanged subject to 'the purchaser obtaining a satisfactory mortgage'. Held: A contract which is said to be conditional, but where the condition is not expressed clearly or is too imprecise as in this case, may be void for uncertainty.
1 Cites



 
 Banning -v- Wright (Inspector of Taxes); HL 1972 - [1972] 2 All ER 987; [1972] 1 WLR 972

 
 Texaco Antilles Ltd -v- Kernochan; HL 1972 - [1972] AC 609

 
 British Railways Board -v- Herrington; HL 16-Feb-1972 - [1972] AC 877; [1972] 2 WLR 537; [1971] 1 All ER 749; [1972] UKHL 1
 
Smout -v- Farquharson Unreported, 12 December 1972
12 Dec 1972
CA

Land
The court considered a case where there was difficulty in deriving the horizontal boundaries of a property.
1 Citers



 
 Official Custodian for Charities -v- Goldridge; CA 1973 - (1973) 26 P & CR 191; (1973) 227 EG 1467

 
 St Edmundsbury -v- Clark (No 2); ChD 1973 - [1973] 1 WLR 1572

 
 Wroth -v- Tyler; 1973 - [1974] Ch 30; [1973 1 All ER 897

 
 Hutton -v- Esher Urban District Council; CA 1973 - [1973] 2 All ER 1123

 
 Rugby Joint Water Board -v- Shaw-Fox; HL 1973 - [1973] AC 202

 
 Sinclair-Hill -v- Southcott; 1973 - (1973) 26 P&CR 490

 
 Smith -v- Scott; ChD 1973 - [1973] Ch 314; [1972] 3 All ER 645; [1972] 3 WLR 783

 
 St Edmundsbury and Ipswich Diocesan Board of Finance -v- Clark (No.2); CA 1973 - [1975] 1 WLR 468; [1973] 3 All ER 902
 
Lloyds Bank Limited -v- Marcan [1973] 1 WLR 1387
1973
CA
Russell LJ, Cairns LJ
Equity, Land
The mortgagor, knowing of the bank's application for possession of the property, granted a lease to his wife for a term of twenty years. He intended to deprive the mortgagee bank of the ability to obtain vacant possession of the property as and when a possession order was made. Held: Before section 172 could be used to avoid a transaction, dishonesty had to be shown. This transaction was dishonest. Russell LJ said:- "If he disposes of an asset which would be available to his creditors with the intention of prejudicing them by putting it, or its worth, beyond their reach, he is in the ordinary case acting in a fashion not honest in the context of the relationship of debtor and creditor"
Cairns LJ said that:- "a conveyance for good consideration would be regarded as fraudulent if made with the deliberate intention of hindering creditors and for the benefit of the debtor himself rather than as a bona fide… arrangement"
Law of Property Act 1925 172

 
Wroth -v- Tyler [1974] Ch 30; [1973] 1 All ER 897
1973


Professional Negligence, Land
The presence of a class F Land Charge registered against a property was a breach of the condition requiring vacant possession. A solicitor failing to complete a registration becomes liable to his client in negligence.


 
 Halifax Building Society -v- Clark; ChD 1973 - [1973] Ch 307
 
Re Endricks' Conveyance [1973] 1 All ER 843
1973
ChD
Goulding J
Land, Contract
Goulding J remarked that redundant words in a contract may sometimes serve the useful purpose of increasing clarity.
1 Citers



 
 Murrayfield Ice Rink Ltd -v- Scottish Rugby Union Trustees; 1973 - 1973 SC 21
 
Saint -v- Jenner [1973] Ch 275
1973


Land
The dominant owner had been exercising his vehicular right of way over a domestic drive by driving at excessive speeds. The servient owner installed speed bumps. The dominant onwer alleged interference with the right of way. Held: This unreasonable use, a use not consistent with the principle of civiliter, entitled the servient owner to erect speed bumps along the drive but did not justify the erection of speed bumps of such severity that a motor car moving at, say, 10 to 15 mph would be unable to cross the bumps without the bumps striking the car's undercarriage.
1 Citers


 
Grigsby -v- Melville [1973] 3 All ER 455
6 Jul 1973
CA
Russell LJ, Stamp LJ, James Lj
Land
The seller had owned two adjoing properties. He sold one off to the plaintiff, describing it in the conveyance as 'all that dwellinghouse'. A cellar under the part sold off had access only from the retained property, but contained supports for the room above. The plainttiff sought an injunction to restrain the seller from using the cellar. Held: The seller's appeal failed. The term dwellinghouse was to be interpreted to include the cellar. There was no ambiguity in the description so as would allow the court to look to any surrounding circumstances to construe the deed. Had he intended to exclude the cellar, it would have been easy to do so. This was not an action for rectification.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Longbottom and Longbottom -v- Bingley Urban District Council [1974] 14 RVR 139
1974
LT

Land
When calculating compensation on the compulsory purchase of property occupied by a partnership, an allowance should be made for managerial or supervisory wages by adding back the wages or drawings of both partners to the average net profits for three years. This was because the council were required to take the premises and the business as they found them and the business was a partnership of the two claimants and it was irrelevant that it might have been bought by a limited company if sold as a going concern.
1 Citers



 
 Law -v- Jones; 1974 - [1974] Ch 112
 
British Railways Board -v- G J Holdings Ltd (1974) 230 EG 973
1974


Limitation, Land
There can be no adverse possession where the squatter's use of the land was not inconsistent with the use intended by the paper owner.
1 Citers



 
 Holiday Inns Inc -v- Broadhead; 1974 - (1974) 232 EG 951
 
Harrison -v- Battye [1975] 1 WLR 58; [1974] 3 All ER 830
1974


Contract, Land
Where it is intended that a contract should come into existence upon exchange of parts executed by the various parties, it was necessary for the parts exchanged to be identical. The effective date when parties are bound is the date of exchange.
1 Citers


 
Commissioner for Railways -v- Valuer-General [1974] AC 328
1974
PC
Lord Wilberforce
Land, Rating
The parties disputed the value of a property in the centre of Sydney beneath which there had been extensive excavations to a depth of 40 feet or more. The question was how the property was to be valued for rating purposes. The statute proceeded on the basis that it was a parcel of land that had to be valued. The Commissioner said that this meant land defined only by vertical boundaries – land usque ad coelum et ad inferos, in other words. The Valuer-General said that it was only possible to value as land that which had a recognisable connection with the surface. Otherwise it had to be valued as stratum, to which special provisions applied. Held: The question that the Valuer-General's argument gave rise to was whether there was a complete dichotomy between land and strata beneath it and, if so, what that dichotomy was. The statutory definition did not answer the question how, in the context of the legislation, layers defined by horizontal boundaries were to be treated. "It is in relation to this question", he said, "that the Latin tag usque ad coelum et ad inferos has been introduced and given a prominent place in the argument." Lord Wilberforce said that it was unlikely that such a sweeping, unscientific and unpractical doctrine as that 'land' meant the whole of the space from the centre of the earth to the heavens would appeal to the common law mind.
1 Citers



 
 Southern Portland Cement Ltd -v- Cooper; PC 1974 - [1974] AC 623; [1974] 2 WLR 152; [1974] 1 All ER 87

 
 Storer -v- Manchester City Council; CA 1974 - [1974] 1 WLR 1403

 
 Wrotham Park Estate Ltd -v- Parkside Homes Ltd; ChD 1974 - [1974] 1 WLR 798; [1974] 2 All ER 321

 
 Trocette Property Co Ltd -v- Greater London Council; CA 1974 - [1974 RVR 306; (1972) 28 P&C R 408
 
Argyle Motors (Birkenhead) -v- Birkenhead Corporation [1974] CLY 374; [1975] AC 99
1974
HL
Lord Wilberforce
Land
The House described the way that the 1845 Act continued to affect the calculation of compensation: "The relevant section of the Act of 1845 (section 68) has, over 100 years, received through a number of decisions, some in this House, and by no means easy to reconcile, an interpretation which fixes upon it a meaning having little perceptible relation to the words used. This represents a century of judicial effort to keep the primitive wording - which itself has an earlier history - in some sort of accord with the realities of the industrial age."
Land Compensation Act 1965 10
1 Citers


 
Myers -v- Milton Keynes Development Corporation [1974] 1 WLR 696
1974
CA
Lord Denning MR
Land, Damages
Land was to be acquired for the development of a new town. The court faced the issue, in the context of a valuation for compulsory purchase, of whether the required disregard of any increase in value attributable to the "scheme" meant that the valuer should disregard the scheme altogether or permitted him to have regard to it when identifying the "proposals of the acquiring authority" in accordance with which the valuer had to assume planning permission would be granted. A valuer assessing land for compulsory purchase was at risk of having to 'conjure up a land of make-believe' and 'let his imagination take flight to the clouds' "What is to be assumed about the Walton Manor Estate itself? Here again one thing is clear. You are not to assume that it would have been developed in accordance with the proposals of the development corporation. You are to disregard any increase by reason of the estate itself being developed in accordance with their proposals. . . But you are to assume that after 10 years planning permission would be available for development as a residential area."
and “It comes to this. In valuing the estate, you are to disregard the effect of the scheme, but you are to assume the availability of planning permission. This is best explained by taking an imaginary instance: A scheme is proposed for building a motorway across Dartmoor with a service station every five miles. Suppose that land is taken on which a service station is to be built as soon as possible. In assessing compensation, you are to disregard any increase due to the proposed motorway, or service stations. But if the landowner had already been granted actual permission for that piece of land for commercial purposes (for example, as a café), you are to have regard to it: see section 14 (2). Even if he had no such permission already, you are to assume that he would have been granted planning permission for a service station; see section 15 (1). And you are to value that land with that permission in the setting in which it would have been if there had been no scheme. If it would have been a good site for a service station, there would be a great increase in value. If it would have been in an inaccessible spot on the wild moor, there would be little, if any, increase in value because there would be no demand for it. A further complication arises when the proposals are not put into effect for 10 years. Planning permissions are not in practice granted so far ahead. They are only granted for immediate development. In the illustration you are therefore to assume that, after 10 years, planning permission would be granted for development of a service station – in a setting where there had been no scheme.”
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Quadrangle Development and Construction Co Ltd -v- Jenner; CA 1974 - [1974] 1 ALL ER 729; [1974] 1 WLR 68
 
Davis -v- Whitby [1974] 1 Ch 186
1974
ChD
Lord Denning MR, Stamp LJ
Land, Limitation
The court discussed the need for some system of acquisition of right by user. Lord Denning MR: "…. the long user as of right should by our law be given a lawful origin if that can be done." Stamp LJ: "…. if long enjoyment of a right is shown, the court will strive to uphold the right by presuming that it had a lawful origin."
Law of Property Act 1925 40
1 Citers



 
 Clearbrook Property Holdings Limited -v- Verrier; ChD 1974 - [1974] 1 WLR 243
 
Worcestershire County Council -v- Newman [1974] 2 All ER 867
1974
QBD
Cairns LJ
Land, Torts - Other
A complaint had been made to the magistrates that the authority had failed in its duty to repair pathways. The paths were crossed by fencing, by barbed wire, and vegetation had grown.
1 Citers


 
In Re Wallis & Simmonds (Builders) Ltd [1974] 1 WLR 391; [1974] 1 All ER 561; [1974] AC 467
1974
ChD
Templeman J
Land, Equity
The deposit of title documents, without more, gives rise to an inference that the deposit was intended by the parties to operate as creating an equitable charge or mortgage over the property whose title document is deposited. In logic there could be no distinction between deposits to secure a first and third party indebtedness.
Templeman J said: "But in my judgment this is a contractual lien - it is said to be a contractual lien - and that makes all the difference. It is also a contractual charge; true it is that the charge arises by presumption, but it does not arise by operation of law. What the court does is to say: `We shall not compel the parties to write down in so many words what the effect of the deposit of title deeds is; we shall simply assume that when they contract, and although they probably do not know the consequences, the person who takes the title deeds contracts not only to retain them but also to have an equitable charge on the land.' The presumption reads into the contract the charge which is implied. If that is right, the charge was created by the company and is therefore registrable under s95."
1 Citers


 
Haron Development Company Ltd (in liquidation) -v- West Sussex County Council Ref/167/1973
1974
LT
Douglas Fanks QC
Land



 
 Wickham Tools -v- Schuler AG; HL 1974 - [1974] AC 235

 
 Heron Garage Properties Ltd -v- Moss; 1974 - [1974] 1 All ER 421; [1974] 1 WLR 148
 
Wallis's Cayton Bay Holiday Camp Ltd -v- Shell-Mex and BP Ltd [1974] 3 WLR 387; [1975] QB 94
10 Jul 1974
CA
Lord Denning MR, Stamp and Ormrod L.JJ.
Land, Limitation
A strip of land between a holiday camp and a garage had been conveyed as an intended roadway. It had not been fenced. A plot of land was sold by the previous farmer to the garage. Later the plaintiffs bought the farm, excluding the roadway, and the disputed land. They farmed the disputed land for several years. The garage was sold to the defendants, but the land remained unidentified, and the plaintiffs continued to farm it. The new road was abandoned, and the defendants tried to sell the disputed land to the plaintiffs. When they sought to fence the land, the action was begun, claiming possessory title, but failed. The plaintiffs appealed. Held: The owners of the disputed land had left it unoccupied for the purposes of eventual use in connection with the proposed new road and there had been no sufficient ouster of the owners so as to create 12 years' adverse possession within the Limitation Act 1939. The appeal failed.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ lip ]
 
Time Products Ltd -v- Combined English Stores Unreported, 2 December 1974
2 Dec 1974

Oliver J
Land, Trusts
The plaintiff and the defendant were each interested in buying a property and had agreed that one of them would make an offer, the other refraining from doing so, and that if the offer were to be accepted the purchaser would deal with the property in a manner to the advantage of both. The arrangement was not sufficiently detailed as to constitute an enforceable contract and the offeror, having become the purchaser with the other refraining from competing, sought to keep the property for itself, excluding the other from any benefit. Held. The property was declared to be held on trust for the two parties in equal shares.
1 Citers


 
Bracewell -v- Appleby [1975] Ch 408
1975
ChD
Graham J
Land, Damages
The defendant wrongly used and asserted a right of way over a private road to a house which he had built. Held: To restrain the defendant from using the road would render the new house uninhabitable. The court refused an injunction on the grounds of the plaintiff's delay in commencing proceedings. The defendant was "liable to pay an amount of damages which so far as it can be estimated is equivalent to a proper and fair price which would be payable for the acquisition of the right of way in question."
Graham J said: "I think that for the purposes of estimating damages [the plaintiffs] and the other servient owners in Hill Road, albeit reluctant, must be treated as being willing to accept a fair price for the right of way in question and must not be treated as if they were in the extremely powerful bargaining position which an interlocutory injunction would have given them if it had been obtained before the defendant started operations and incurred expense. Such is to my mind the penalty of standing by until the house is built.
On the evidence here the probable figure of notional profit which the defendant has made, being the difference between the overall cost of the new house and its present-day value seems to be somewhere between £4,000 and £6,000 and I think it is fair to take £5,000 as about as accurate a figure as one can get. The circumstances here are very different from those in the Wrotham Park case and I think that the proper approach is to endeavour to arrive at a fair figure which, on the assumption made, the parties would have arrived at as one which the plaintiffs would accept as compensating them for loss of amenity and increased user [of the private road], and which at the same time, whilst making the blue land a viable building plot, would not be so high as to deter the defendant from building at all. . . . I think he would have been prepared to pay what is relatively to his notional profit quite a large sum for the right of way in question and to achieve the building of his new home. This was a time of rising property values and I think he would have been prepared to pay £2,000 to get his right of way and if he had made such an offer, I think the other five owners in Hill Road ought also to have been prepared to accept it.. . . "
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte Hood; CA 1975 - [1975] 1 QB 891

 
 St Edmondsbury and Ipswich Diocesan Board of Finance -v- Clark (No 2); ChD 1975 - [1975] 1 All ER 772; [1975] 1 WLR 468
 
Michael Richards Properties Ltd -v- Corporation of Wardens of St Saviour's Parish Southwark [1975] 2 All ER 416
1975

Goff J
Contract, Land
Property was offered for sale by tender. The tender documents contained all the detailed terms upon which the contract was to be based. The successful tender was accepted by letter, but by mistake the secretary who typed it typed in the words "subject to contract" at the bottom. The purchaser had refused to complete after discovering that the local authority intended to acquire the property compulsorily. Held: Since there was nothing left to negotiate, the words subject to contract could be rejected as meaningless. As to the request for the return of the deposit: "Section 49, however, was passed to remove the former hardship which existed where a defendant had a good defence in equity to a claim for specific performance but no defence in law, and, therefore, the deposit was forfeited. I am not prepared to say that the jurisdiction can only be exercised in such a case, but outside that ambit, it should only be exercised, if at all, sparingly and with caution.
Here the plaintiffs have advanced only two reasons why I should exercise my discretion in their favour. First, that if I do not, the defendants will have made a profit, and secondly, that the warning concerning the views of the local authority could have been communicated before the deposit was paid. The first element, however, is inherent in cases where a deposit is forfeited, and the second is not really significant because the contract was concluded before then by the letter of acceptance…."
Law of Property Act 1925 49(2)
1 Citers



 
 Higgs -v- Nassauvian Ltd; PC 1975 - [1975] AC 464; [1975] 2 WLR 72; [1975] 1 All ER 95

 
 Schindler -v- Pigault; 1975 - [1975] 30 P&CR 328

 
 Edwards -v- Marshall Lee; ChD 1975 - (1975) 235 EG 901; Times, 18 June 1975

 
 Hereford and Worcester County Council -v- Newman; CA 1975 - [1975] 2 All ER 673; [1975] 1 WLR 901
 
Re Kershaw's Application (1975) 31 P& CR 187
1975
LT
Douglas Frank QC
Land, Damages
Two bungalows were to be built in the grounds of a house subject to a restrictive covenant. The tribunal considered the degree of disturbance which would be suffered by the objector neighbours. Held: The neighbours would "suffer considerably from the noise of builder's vehicles, from the construction of the driveway and by the general disturbance associated with building works". This would be a considerable disadvantage for up to a year and "One of the questions, perhaps the most important question I have to decide, is what weight I should give to this intensive inconvenience and noise generated by builders' traffic for this very limited period. Clearly for that period the restrictive covenant does secure practical benefits of substantial value or advantage to (the objector). On the other hand, I cannot think that such a literal construction of the section is intended, but rather one should look at the matter in a broader context and regard this as a short term, albeit intensive interference but small and not so substantial in relation to the overall long term enjoyment of the property."
In principle, protection from short term disturbance arising from construction, although providing a "substantial" benefit during the construction period, had to be looked at in a broader context for the purposes of section 84.
Law of Property Act 1924 84
1 Citers



 
 Tiverton Estates Ltd -v- Wearwell Ltd; CA 1975 - [1975] Ch 146

 
 LE Walwin and Partners Limited -v- West Sussex County Council; ChD 1975 - [1975] 3 All ER 604

 
 St Edmunsbury -v- Clark (No 2); CA 1975 - [1975] 1 WLR 468
 
Smirk -v- Lyndale Developments Ltd [1975] Ch 321; [1975] 1 All ER 690
1975
ChD
Pennycuick V-C
Land, Limitation, Landlord and Tenant
The court considered the doctrine that a tenant acquiring title to land by adverse possession, did so on behalf of hs landlord. Held: The cases demonstrated that "the law … has got into something of a tangle", but the doctrine, at least as summarised by Parke B, appeared to be "in accordance with justice and common sense". If a tenant occupies land belonging to the landlord but not included in the demise, that land is presumed to be an addition to the land demised to the tenant, so that it becomes subject to the terms of the tenancy and must therefore be given up to the landlord when the tenancy ends. For there to be a surrender of an existing lease by operation of law because of the grant of a new lease,
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Lund -v- Taylor; CA 1975 - [1975] 31 P & C R 167
 
Rightside Properties Ltd -v- Gray [1975] Ch 72
1975

Walton J
Contract, Land

1 Citers



 
 New Windsor Corporation -v- Mellor; CA 1975 - [1975] 3 All ER 44; [1975] 3 WLR 25; [1975] Ch 380

 
 Crabb -v- Arun District Council; CA 23-Jul-1975 - [1976] Ch 179; [1975] 3 All ER 865; [1975] EWCA Civ 7
 
Horrocks and Another -v- Forray [1975] EWCA Civ 9; [1976] 1 All ER 737; [1976] 1 WLR 230
7 Nov 1975
CA

Land, Wills and Probate

[ Bailii ]

 
 Harris -v- Birkenhead Corporation; 12-Nov-1975 - [1976] 1 All ER 341; [1975] EWCA Civ 10; [1975] 1 WLR 379

 
 Bird and Bird -v- Wakefield Metropolitan Borough Council; 1976 - (1976) 33 P&CR 478

 
 Copeland Borough Council -v- Secretary of State for the Environment; 1976 - (1976) 31 P&CR 403

 
 Security Trust Co -v- The Royal Bank of Canada; PC 1976 - [1976] AC 503; [1975] UKPC 23

 
 SJC Construction -v- Sutton London Borough Council; CA 1976 - [1974] 28 P & CR 200; (1975) 234 EG 363; [1976] RVR 219
 
Central Electricity Generating Board -v- Clwyd County Council [1976] 1 All ER 251; [1976] 1 WLR 151
1976

Goff J
Land

1 Citers



 
 Gibson -v- Hunter Home Designs Limited; 1976 - 1976 SC 23

 
 Kingston -v- Phillips; CA 1976 - Unreported, 1976 Transcript 279

 
 Steadman -v- Steadman; HL 1976 - [1976] AC 536
 
Crown Estate Commissioners -v- Fairlie Yacht Slip Ltd 1976 SC 161
1976

Lord Dunpark
Land, Scotland
The defenders had laid down moorings on the seabed in Fairlie Bay. They argued that the right to lay moorings was a necessary incident of the public right of navigation. The pursuers maintained, however, that the right to anchor was restricted to temporary anchorage in the course of passage and that it did not extend to quasi-permanent anchorage between voyages. Held: A right to lay up a vessel between voyages is a not necessary incident of a public right of navigation: "the public right of navigation is restricted in the manner for which the pursuers contend. In my opinion, the earliest point of time when navigation begins is when a vessel is being prepared for a voyage, and navigation ends when the ship is left, either unmanned or with a caretaker crew, at the end of a voyage. A ship moored between voyages is not being navigated.
The laying up of a vessel is, in my opinion, an incident of ownership; it cannot properly be regarded as a necessary incident of the right of navigation."
1 Citers



 
 Wills Trustees -v- Cairngorm Canoeing and Sailing School; HL 1976 - [1976] SC (HL) 30

 
 Treloar -v- Nute; CA 1976 - [1976] 1 WLR 1295

 
 Munton -v- Greater London Council; CA 1976 - [1976] 1 WLR 649

 
 Chang -v- Registrar of Titles; 11-Feb-1976 - (1976) 137 CLR 177; (1976) 50 ALJR 404; (1976) 8 ALR 285; [1976] HCA 1

 
 Wills' Trustees -v- Cairngorm Canoeing and Sailing School Ltd; HL 3-Mar-1976 - [1976] UKHL 8

 
 Secretary of State for Education and Science -v- Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council; HL 21-Oct-1976 - [1977] AC 1014; [1976] UKHL 6; [1976] 3 All ER 665; [1976] 3 WLR 641
 
Berkley -v- Poulett and others [1976] EWCA Civ 1; [1977] 1 EGLR 86; (1977) 241 EG 911
29 Oct 1976
CA
Stamp LJ, Scarman LJ, Goff LJ
Land, Contract
The court was asked whether some pictures, prints, a statue, and a sundial, each affixed to the land, had become fixtures or had remained chattels. If fixtures, they passed on the conveyance of the land; if chattels they did not. Held: The modern answer to the question whether objects which were originally chattels have become fixtures, that is to say part of the freehold, depends upon the application of two tests: (1) the method and degree of annexation; (2) the object and purpose of the annexation. Here, the paintings had been hung for their better enjoyment, and were not fixtures. Neither the statue nor the sundial were physically attached to the realty, and remained chattels.
Lord Justice Scarman said: "If there is no physical annexation there is no fixture. Quicquid plantatur solo solo cedit. Nevertheless an object, resting on the ground by its own weight alone, can be a fixture, if it be so heavy that there is no need to tie it into a foundation, and if it were put in place to improve the realty. Prima facie, however, an object resting on the ground by its own weight alone is not a fixture. Conversely, an object affixed to realty but capable of being removed without much difficulty may yet be a fixture. Today so great are the technical skills of affixing and removing objects to land or buildings that the second test is more likely than the first to be decisive. Perhaps the enduring significance of the first test is a reminder that there must be some degree of physical annexation before a chattel can be treated as part of the realty. "
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Dunton -v- Dover District Council [1977] QB 87
1977

Griffiths J
Land, Nuisance
References to decibels in actions for noise nusance, are not helpful unless compared with everyday sounds to which others can all relate.
1 Citers



 
 Tito -v- Waddell (No 2); Tito -v-Attorney General; ChD 1977 - [1977] Ch 106; [1977] 3 All ER 129; [1977] 3 WLR 972

 
 Western Bank Ltd -v- Schindler; CA 1977 - [1977] Ch 1

 
 Powell -v- McFarlane; ChD 1977 - (1977) 38 P&CR 452

 
 Twentieth Century Banking Corporation Ltd -v- Wilkinson; ChD 1977 - [1977] Ch 99
 
Chewton Common, In re [1977] 3 All ER 509; [1977] 1 WLR 1242
1977


Land

1 Citers



 
 Jelson Ltd -v- Blaby District Council; CA 1977 - [1977] 1 WLR 1020; (1978) 1 All ER 548

 
 Red House Farms (Thorndon) Ltd -v- Catchpole; CA 1977 - [1977] 1 EGLR 125
 
Shaw -v- Applegate [1977] 1 WLR 970
1977
CA
Buckley LJ, Goff LJ
Land
There was a covenant against the use of a property as an amusement arcade. Within three years the purchaser had installed amusement machines, but it was not until three years later that the plaintiffs issued proceedings for an injunction and damages. The plaintiff appealed a decsion that he had lost the ability to enforce the covenant through delay. Held: The appeal succeeded, but the remedy was limited to damages. The court considered the continuing enforceability of a restrictive covenant.
Buckley LJ said: "The real test, I think, must be whether upon the facts of the particular case the situation has become such that it would be dishonest or unconscionable for the plaintiff, or the person having the rights sought to be enforced, to continue to seek to enforce it." As to Willmott -v- Barber: ‘As I understand that passage, what the judge is there saying is that where a man has got a legal right — as the plaintiffs have in the present case, being legal assignees of the benefit of the covenant binding the defendant — acquiescence on their part will not deprive them of that legal right unless it is of such a nature and in such circumstances that it would really be dishonest or unconscionable of the plaintiffs to set up that right after what has occurred.”
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Buckley -v- Lane Herman and Co [1977] CLY 3143
1977


Land, Professional Negligence, Legal Professions
A solicitor instructed to exchange contracts on a related sale and purchase must achieve simultaneous exchange. If he failed to do so he will be liable in negligence to the client for any losses.

 
Williams -v- Burlington Investments [1977] SJ 121
1977


Equity, Land

1 Citers


 
Yateley Common, Hampshire, In re [1977] 1 All ER 505; [1977] 1 WLR 840
1977


Land

1 Citers



 
 Derby & Co Ltd -v- ITC Pension Trust Ltd; 1977 - [1977] 2 All ER 890
 
Britford Common, In re [1977] 1 WLR 39; [1977] 1 All ER 532
1977


Land

1 Citers



 
 Berkely -v- Poulett; CA 1977 - [1977] 1 EGLR 86; [1977] 261 EG 911
 
Gray -v- Wykeham Martin & Goode Unreported, 17 January 1977
17 Jan 1977


Land, Limitation

1 Citers



 
 Bernstein of Leigh (Baron) -v- Skyview and General Ltd (Summary); QBD 9-Feb-1977 - [1977] EWHC QB 1; [1977] 3 WLR 136; [1977] 241 EG 917; [1977] 2 All ER 902; [1978] QB 479

 
 Moreton Cullimore -v- Routledge; CA 11-Feb-1977 - Unreported, February 11 1977

 
 Miller -v- Jackson; CA 6-Apr-1977 - [1977] 1 QB 966; [1977] 3 All ER 338; [1977] EWCA Civ 6
 
G & K Ladenbau (UK) Ltd -v- Crawley & De Reya [1978] 1 WLR 266; [1977] 2 All ER 118
25 Apr 1977
QBD
Mocatta J
Land, Professional Negligence, Damages
The defendant solicitors acted for the plaintiff in the purchase of land, but failed to undertake a commons search which would have revealed an entry which would prevent the client pursuing his development. The defect was discovered only when purchasers from their clients later undertook a commons search. In fact the registration was erroneous, but the question took some time to resolve. Held: In the light of the defendants' knowledge about the plantiff intending to develop the land, any loss of profits was an appropriate head of damages including the cost of making good the error. Registration of common rights was conclusive evidence of the matters registered. Evidence was admitted from four solicitors as to best conveyancing practice as to whether commons searches were necessary. If the land is open land, a search of the commons registers should normally be undertaken to check that land is not subject to undisclosed rights of common. The fact that the land was vacant, and that it had previously been in the ownership of a lord of the manor should have alerted the defendants. However, a solicitor should not search in every case, but exercise a discretion.
Commons Registration Act 1965 10
1 Cites

[ lip ]

 
 Sovmots Investments Ltd -v- Secretary of State for the Environment; HL 28-Apr-1977 - [1979] AC 144; [1977] UKHL 3; [1977] 2 All ER 385; [1977] 2 WLR 951; [1977] QB 411

 
 Smith -v- UMB Chrysler (Scotland) Ltd; HL 9-Nov-1977 - [1977] UKHL 7; 1978 SLT 21; [1978] 1 All ER 18; 8 BLR 1; [1978] 1 WLR 165; 1978 SC (HL) 1

 
 Wigginton & Milner Ltd -v- Winster Engineering Ltd; CA 7-Dec-1977 - [1978] 1 WLR 1462
 
In re Niyazi's Will Trusts [1978] 1 WLR 910
1978


Land
Terms in older documents could be re-interpreted to accord with current useage.
1 Citers



 
 Methuen-Campbell -v- Walters; CA 1978 - [1978] 2 EGLR 58; [1979] 1 All ER 606; [1979] QB 525

 
 Laing Homes Ltd -v- Eastleigh Borough Council; LT 1978 - (1978) 250 EG

 
 Appleby -v- Ireland; 1978 - [1978] RVR 156
 
Ferguson -v- Tennant 1978 SC (HL) 19
1978
HL
Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, Lord Grieve
Scotland, Land
Pasturage is, in itself, a well-recognised servitude. Lord Grieve said that the number of cattle that may be put on the lands of the servient tenement must not exceed that which is "proper to the dominant" - that, is, that the number that the proprietor of the dominant tenement can support from his own resources.
1 Citers


 
Cole -v- Rose [1978] 3 All ER 1121
1978

Mervyn Davies QC J
Contract, Land
The vendor had purported to rescind the contract and retain the deposit, while selling to another purchaser at a higher price. Held. The purchaser was entitled to return of the deposit, because the notice to complete had been ineffective. After referring to Schindler, Mervin Davies said: "With those observations in mind, it seems that one can contemplate an order under s 49(2) only if there are some special circumstances in the particular matter, being circumstances that suggest that it is perhaps unfair or inequitable that the purchaser should lose his deposit. I cannot see any special circumstances in the present case. It is a straightforward case of a contract for sale that was not completed because the purchaser could not find the purchase price in time."
Law of Property act 1925 49(2)
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Daulia Ltd -v- Four Millbank Nominees Ltd [1978] 1 Ch 231
1978


Land, Contract
In a contract the Defendants promised certain properties to whoever first arrived with the requisite draft contract and bankers drafts. The Plaintiffs did. Held: They failed in their claim. It involved a unilateral contract and the Defendants' oral promises was expressly made subject to contract, but the Court decided the dispute by reference to the central consideration that the contract concerned the disposition of an interest in land to which section 40 of the Law of Property Act applied.
Law of Property Act 1925 40
1 Citers



 
 Hesperides Hotels Ltd -v- Aegean Turkish Holidays Ltd, Muftizahde; HL 1978 - [1979] AC 508; [1978] 2 All ER 1168; [1978] 3 WLR 378; 142 JP 541; 122 Sol Jo 507
 
Laurence -v- Lexcourt Holdings Ltd [1978] 1 WLR 1128; [1978] 2 All ER 810
1978
ChD
Dillon QC
Contract, Land
The purchasers sought rescission of a 15 year lease of business premises. Unknown to either party, the planning permission restricted their use as offices to a period of no more than two years. Held: There had been a misrepresentation by the lessors which entitled the lessees to rescind the agreement. Dealing with an alternative plea of common mistake, the court followed Solle v Butcher and Grist v Bailey in holding that the lease could be rescinded on the ground that it had been concluded under a mistake which was fundamental. The defendant's failure to make the search which would have disclosed the mistake did not disentitle them from relying on their mistake.
1 Citers


 
Swordheath Properties Ltd -v- Floyd [1978] 1 WLR 550; [1978] 1 All ER 721
1978


Land, Damages
The rules relatng to the grant of immediate possession to a landowner as against squatters applied in the County Court just as much as in the High Court. The amount of damages payable by a trespasser on land is ordinarily the letting value of the premises.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
In re Turnworth Down Dorset [1978] 1 Ch 251
1978

Oliver J
Land
The only effect of non-registration of rights of common was to deprive the inhabitants of the benefit of the conclusive presumption furnished by section 10 of the Act and to require them to prove the existence of the rights in question. The land was not deemed to be a village green but did not exclude the possibility that it actually was
Commons Registration Act 1965 10
1 Citers



 
 Woolfson -v- Strathclyde Regional Council; HL 15-Feb-1978 - [1978] UKHL 5; [1979] JPL 169; (1978) 248 EG 777; 1978 SC (HL) 90; 1978 SLT 159; (1979) 38 P & CR 521
 
Allen and Another -v- Greenwood and Another
16 Oct 1978
CA
Buckley, Orr and Goff L.JJ
Land, Limitation
cw Easement - Prescription - Right to light - Greenhouse - Claim for sufficient light to cultivate plants - Whether specially high amount of light - Whether right to extraordinary amount of light capable of being acquired by prescription - Whether right is to light for illumination only or capable of including sun's warmth
The claimants greenhouse had been in the same position for over 20 years. They complained about work on the defendant neighbour's land which interfered with the rights of light they had acquired. Held: The Act set the standard for the easement acquired by prescription as the extent required for the use which had been made. The greenhouse required extra light, and that was the extent of the easement acquired.
Prescription Act 1832 3
1 Cites

[ lip ]

 
 Quennell -v- Maltby; CA 15-Nov-1978 - [1979] 1 WLR 318; [1979] 1 All ER 568; [1978] EWCA Civ 1

 
 Pascoe -v- Turner; CA 1-Dec-1978 - [1979] 1 WLR 431; [1978] EWCA Civ 2; [1979] 2 All ER 945

 
 Regina -v- Surrey County Council, ex parte Send Parish Council; 1979 - (1979) 40 P&CR 390
 
Universal Corporation -v- Five Ways Properties Limited [1979] All ER 552
1979
CA
Buckley LJ, Eveleigh LJ
Contract, Land
The purchaser had failed to complete, notwithstanding the service of a notice to complete. The purchaser a Nigerian company suffered a delay in obtaining funds. There was no attempt to exclude section 49(2) and the purchaser applied under that section for the repayment of the deposit. Held: The application for a strike out failed. The court considered the jurisdiction to order the return of a deposit paid under a contract for the sale of land.
Buckley LJ said: "a discretion which must, of course, be exercised judicially, and with regard to all relevant considerations, including the very important consideration of the terms of the contract into which the parties have chosen to enter . . . the jurisdiction is one to be exercised where the justice of case requires. In this connection I take the word "justice" to be used in a wide sense, indicating that repayment must be ordered in any circumstances which make this the fairest course between the two parties." and "I prefer to the judge's approach to the construction of this subsection the approach of Megarry V-C who has expressed the view that the jurisdiction is one to be exercised where the justice of the case requires: see what he said in Schindler v Pigault. In this connection I take the word 'justice' to be used in a wide sense, indicating that repayment must be ordered in any circumstances which makes this the fairest course between the two parties. It is, I think, relevant in the present case that condition 22 of the national conditions does not confer on the vendor an unqualified right to forfeit a deposit. The words in para 3 of the conditions are ". . the purchaser's deposit may be forfeited (unless the court otherwise directs)". This formula may well have been adopted with the terms of section 49(2) in mind. However that may be, in my view the language makes clear that the vendor does not have an absolute right to retain the deposit paid by a purchaser who is in default under the condition."
Eveleigh LJ said that the limitation applied by the judge was not "plain and obvious".
Law of Property Act 1925 49(2)
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Dicconson Holdings Ltd -v- St Helens Metropolitan Borough (1979) 249 EG 1075
1979


Land

1 Citers


 
Leonidis -v- Thames Water Authority (1979) 251 EG 669
1979

Parker J
Land, Damages
The court considered the liability of an authority executing works under authority of the Act for damages for disturbance: “if a private individual had done what the defendants did in the present case the claimant would have had a good cause of action ... .”.
Public Health Act 1936
1 Citers


 
Jackson -v- Bishop (1979) 48 P &CR 57
1979
CA
Bridge LJ
Land, Contract
Where the definition of the parcels in a conveyance or transfer is not clear, then the court must have recourse to extrinsic evidence, and in particular to the physical features on the ground: "It seems to me that the question is one which must depend on the application of the plan to the physical features on the ground, to see which out of two possible constructions seems to give the more sensible result."
1 Citers


 
Melwood Units Pty Ltd v- Commissioner of Main Roads [1979] AC 426
1979
PC
Lord Russell of Killowen
Land, Commonwealth, Damages
The board considered the compensation payable on the compulsory purchase of land for the purpose of an expressway between Brisbane and Combabah. At the date of compulsory acquisition the project had reached the stage where it was reasonable to assume that a strip of the appellant’s land would be acquired for the expressway. The Land Appeal Court assessed compensation on the basis that the value of the land was to be arrived at by adjusting the price paid by the appellant for it in the light of the proposal. The Full Court of the Supreme Court of Queensland took the view that the question of the status and effect of the expressway proposal raised issues of fact upon the valuation but no question of law. Held. A failure to properly apply the Point Gourde principle did disclose a question of law. The Pointe Gourde principle is part of the "common law deriving as a matter of principle from the nature of compensation for resumption or compulsory acquisition." The principle operates both with respect to the consequential enhancement and adverse effect of a scheme for public works upon resumed land. A resuming authority cannot by its project of resumption destroy the potential for the highest and best use of the land and then resume land severing it from part of the previous holding, on the basis that the destroyed potential never existed. The principle remains applicable where planning permission is refused for development for the highest and best use of the whole of the land, because of the apprehended use of part of the land for a public purpose.
Lord Russell of Killowen said: "Under the principle in Point (sic) Gourde Quarrying and Transport Co Ltd v Sub-Intendent of Crown Lands [1947] A.C. 565 the landowner cannot claim compensation to the extent to which the value of his land is enhanced by the very scheme of which the resumption forms an integral part: that principle in their Lordships' opinion operates also in reverse. A resuming authority cannot by its project of resumption destroy the potential of the [land to be resumed] and then resume and sever on the basis that the destroyed potential had never existed."
1 Citers



 
 Singh -v- Nazeer; 1979 - [1979] Ch 474

 
 Suffolk County Council -v- Mason; HL 1979 - [1979] AC 705; [1979] 2 All ER 369

 
 Armia Ltd -v- Daejan Developments Ltd; HL 21-Feb-1979 - [1979] UKHL 8; 1979 SLT 147; 1979 SC (HL) 56

 
 Sharpe Re, Ex parte Trustee of the Bankrupt -v- Sharpe; ChD 30-Jul-1979 - [1980] 1 WLR 219; (1980) 39 P & CR 459; [1980] 1 All ER 190

 
 MEPC Ltd -v- Christian-Edwards; HL 8-Nov-1979 - [1981] AC 205; [1979] 3 All ER 752
 
Domb and Another -v- Isoz [1980] 2 WLR 565; [1980] Ch 548; [1980] 1 All ER 942
29 Nov 1979
CA
Buckley, Bridge and Templeman LJJ
Legal Professions, Contract, Land, Agency
In a chain of conveyancing transactions, a solicitor sent his contract and deposit to his vendor's solicitor, asking him to hold it to his order pending exchange. On the next day, that vendor's solicitors agreed to an exchange of contracts over the telephone on his own purchase, but his client then told him not to proceed. The solicitor did not deliver the contract on that purchase, and claimed that under the postal rule, exchange had not taken place. The purchaser appealed a finding that there was no contract. Held: A contract had been created. The solicitor had his client's authority to exchange in this manner, and the contract was made at the time of the agreement on the telephone. The contract could come into existence before the posting of the second part of the contract, which would be the normal rule for postal acceptance.
Buckley LJ: "the essential characteristic of exchange of contracts is that each party shall have such a document signed by the other party in his possession or control so that, at his own need, he can have the document available for his own use. Exchange of a written contract for sale is in my judgment effected so soon as each part of the contract, signed by the vendor or the purchaser as the case may be, is in the actual or constructive possession of the other party or of his solicitor. Such possession need not be actual or physical possession; possession by an agent of the party or of his solicitor, in such circumstances that the party or solicitor in question has control over the document and can at any time procure its actual physical possession will, in my opinion, suffice. In such a case the possession of the agent is the possession of the principal. A party's solicitor employed to act in respect of such a contract has, subject to express instructions, implied authority to effect exchange of contracts and so to make the bargain binding upon his client. This he can, in my judgment, do by any method which is effectual to constitute exchange."
BRIDGE LJ: "A solicitor acting for a vendor or a purchaser who holds his client's signed part of the contract has his client's ostensible authority to effect exchange of contracts."
Templeman LJ: "In my judgment a client impliedly authorises, and ostensibly authorises, his solicitor to effect exchange of contracts in such manner and by such agents as the solicitor may think fit. The client confers power to exchange, but is not interested in the machinery or method of exchange, which is a matter for the solicitor and the general law."
1 Cites

[ lip ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.