Acts
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts
Search Results for: Conveyancing Act 1881
Sovmots Investments Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment: 1977
Judges: Forbes J Citations: [1977] QB 411 Statutes: Conveyancing Act 1881 6 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Appeal from – Sovmots Investments Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment HL 28-Apr-1977 The section in the 1881 Act does not apply to a quasi-easement because ‘When land is under one ownership one cannot speak … Continue reading Sovmots Investments Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment: 1977
Re Ecclesiastical Commissioner’s Conveyance: 1936
Judges: Luxmoore J Citations: [1936] Ch 430 Statutes: Conveyancing Act 1881 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – University of East London Higher Education Corporation v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham and others ChD 9-Dec-2004 The University wanted to sell land for development free of restrictive covenants. It had previously been in the … Continue reading Re Ecclesiastical Commissioner’s Conveyance: 1936
The Benwell Tower: 1895
Citations: (1895) 72 LT 664 Statutes: Conveyancing Act 1881 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – Buhr v Barclays Bank plc CA 26-Jan-2001 The bank took a second charge over property, but failed to get it registered. The chargors fell into debt and bankruptcy, and the property was sold. The proceeds were used to … Continue reading The Benwell Tower: 1895
Turner v Walsh: CA 1909
The landlord sought to enforce the tenant’s repairing covenants. After the tenancy had been created, he had charged his interest. The tenant said that, since the lessor had conveyed his interest by way of mortgage, the right to sue lay exclusively with the mortgagee. Held: Section 10 of the 1881 Act conferred on a mortgagor, … Continue reading Turner v Walsh: CA 1909
Thellusson v Liddard: 1900
It was argued that section 63 of the 1881 Act operated to pass whatever estate, right or interest the conveying party had in the property there being considered at the date of the deed that was relevant in that case. Held: Stirling J approved the argument. Judges: Stirling J Citations: [1900] 2 Ch 635 Statutes: … Continue reading Thellusson v Liddard: 1900
Hanbury v Bateman: 1920
In the course of commenting on a discussion about the effect of section 63 of the 1881 Act: ‘The effect of the Act may be this, that a conveyance will have the effect of conveying every estate and interest which the person conveying can convey . . [but] I do not think you can read … Continue reading Hanbury v Bateman: 1920
Paget v Paget: CA 1898
The plaintiff wife was ‘a lady of fortune’, with the bulk of her property settled on her for life for her separate use without power of anticipation. They ‘moved in good society and, large as their income was, they lived far beyond it.’ They were ‘recklessly extravagant’ and within five years were in desperate need … Continue reading Paget v Paget: CA 1898
Birmingham, Dudley and District Banking Co v Ross: CA 1888
Birmingham Corporation secured development of a large area by building agreements which granted leases on completion of the buildings to their builders. One builder, Daniell, erected a building to a height of 48 feet, and assigned his interest under his lease to the claimants. At the time of the lease there was only a low … Continue reading Birmingham, Dudley and District Banking Co v Ross: CA 1888
Seymour Road (Southampton) Ltd v Williams and Others: ChD 29 Jan 2010
The claimant sought a declaration that restrictive covenants imposed in 1896 affecting its land were no longer effective. Held: The declaration was granted. Under the 1881 Act (as opposed to the 1925 Act) covenants were not automatically attached to the land. Here there was no implied or explicit annexation of the covenants. The covenants were … Continue reading Seymour Road (Southampton) Ltd v Williams and Others: ChD 29 Jan 2010
Davis v Town Properties Investment Corporation Ltd: CA 20 Mar 1903
The scope of the landlord’s covenant for quiet enjoyment is limited by the fact that the owner of land adjoining the demised premises (which did not belong to the lessor at the date of the lease) might build on it at any time so as to interfere with the draught from the lessee’s chimneys. Section … Continue reading Davis v Town Properties Investment Corporation Ltd: CA 20 Mar 1903
Public Trustee v Duchy of Lancaster: CA 1927
The court was asked whether the conveyance of a farm out of which a tithe rentcharge issued carried with it, by reason of Section 63, the rentcharge itself. Held: The farm and the tithe rentcharge were two separate hereditaments and express words would be necessary to pass the rentcharge. The intention of the 1836 Act … Continue reading Public Trustee v Duchy of Lancaster: CA 1927
Lewis v Meredith: 1913
Neville J discussed the attachment of an easement created under a leasehold interest becoming attached to the freehold interest: ‘Easement or right in the strict sense there could not be, for the common ownership precluded the acquisition of any . .
Sovmots Investments Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment: HL 28 Apr 1977
The section in the 1881 Act does not apply to a quasi-easement because ‘When land is under one ownership one cannot speak in any intelligible sense of rights, or privileges, or easements being exercised over one part for the benefit of another. . .
Kumar v Dunning and Another: CA 15 Apr 1987
The court considered the effect of section 62 of the 1925 Act.
Sir Nicholas Browne-Wilkinson V-C said: ‘The main intention of Section 62 was to provide a form of statutory shorthand rendering it unnecessary to include such words expressly in . .
Cedar Holdings Ltd v Green: CA 1981
A property was held in the joint names of a former husband and wife. To obtain a loan for the husband, a legal charge over the property was executed by the husband, but he had another woman execute for the wife, pretending to be her. The chargee . .
Chambers v Randell: 1923
Where there is no express annexation of the benefit of a covenant the Court will usually regard the covenant as imposed simply to protect the covenantee while he or she holds the land, or to enable the covenantee to dispose of the land, together . .
Loveluck-Edwards v Ideal Developments Ltd: ChD 22 Mar 2012
The claimants asserted a right of way over the defendants’ land, saying one had been impliedly reserved on the severance of the two plots by conveyance in 1920, and alternately obtained by prescription.
Held: The claim failed. . .
Trimble and Another v Cassidy and Another: ChNI 29 Apr 2022
This case considers the nature and extent of the protection afforded by section 21(2) of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act 1881 (‘the 1881 Act’) to a purchaser buying from a mortgagee or a fixed charge receiver. Judges: Mcbride J Citations: [2022] NICh 7 Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: Northern Ireland Land Updated: 08 September 2022; … Continue reading Trimble and Another v Cassidy and Another: ChNI 29 Apr 2022
Ministry of Housing and Local Government v Sharp: CA 1970
Mr Sharp was the local land registrar with statutory duty to maintain the local registry, issuing certificates in response to search requests. A clerk who had been seconded by another Council to assist him negligently issued an inaccurate certificate to a prospective purchaser of land, omitting any reference to a claim to reimbursement of compensation … Continue reading Ministry of Housing and Local Government v Sharp: CA 1970
John Lewis Properties PLC v Viscount Chelsea: ChD 1993
Three Leases of the Peter Jones site to T’s predecessor in 1934 contained covenants by T to redevelop the site in two phases, the second of which related to the MackMurdo and Simon’s Street buildings and was to be completed by December 25 1987. In . .
Fletcher v Nokes: 1897
A notice was issued under s 14 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act 1881 in which the lessor alleged generally that the lessee had ‘broken the covenants for repairing the inside and outside’ of the demised premises, and required the lessee to . .
Fox v Jolly: HL 1916
The House referred to a schedule of repair served on the tenant: ‘Now the schedule is attacked on several grounds. It is said that it does not tell the tenant what it is he ought to do in order to remedy the breach of which complaint is made. I am . .
