Click the case name for better results:

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

Attorney-General v Tomline (No 3): CA 1880

The Crown claimed land by adverse possession. It had continued in possession for many years after a licence had expired. Held: The Crown had acquired a fee simple by adverse possession, and not simply a copyhold title. James LJ: ‘From the time of the determination of Mair’s tenancy there was a wrongful possession of it, … Continue reading Attorney-General v Tomline (No 3): CA 1880

Heath v Pugh: CA 1881

The freeholder charged the land in 1856. He remained in possession, and did not make any payments or give any acknowledgment of the mortgagee’s title. In 1870 the mortgagee presented a bill for foreclosure, and in 1874 a bill of redemption or foreclosure was granted, with foreclosure being made absolute in 1877, and possession sought … Continue reading Heath v Pugh: CA 1881

Tichborne v Weir: CA 1892

The 1833 Act provided that after 20 years of adverse possession ‘the Right and Title’ to the land ‘shall be extinguished’. Held: By barring the remedy and extinguishing the title of the person out of possession, the Act did not create a new title in the disseisor or convey the dispossessed person’s title to him.A … Continue reading Tichborne v Weir: CA 1892

Earnshaw and Others v Hartley: CA 31 Mar 1999

An administrator de son tort, who was also a beneficiary, held the estate property on trust, and so could not establish adverse possession against the estate during the period of trusteeship. He held a sufficient interest in the assets already. A delay in the application for the grant did not apply where time had not … Continue reading Earnshaw and Others v Hartley: CA 31 Mar 1999

Paradise Beach and Transportation Co Ltd v Price-Robinson: PC 1968

(Bahamas) The provisions in the Acts of 1833 and 1874 did away with the earlier doctrine of ‘non adverse’ possession, under which, in the absence of an ouster, the possession of one joint tenant or tenant in common was regarded as the possession of the others, so that time did not run against those who … Continue reading Paradise Beach and Transportation Co Ltd v Price-Robinson: PC 1968

In Re Williams: 1886

The purpose of the section is to allow time to run against an administrator as from the intestate’s death, irrespective of whether a grant of administration has been obtained or not. Citations: (1886) 34 ChD 558 Statutes: Real Property Limitation Acts of 1833 6 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – Earnshaw and Others … Continue reading In Re Williams: 1886

In Re Jolly: CA 1900

Mrs Jolly let a farm to her son who paid rent until 1881, but not thereafter, and her title to the farm was extinguished in 1893. She died in 1898. The question which arose was whether at her death any rent arrears remained due. Held: The extinction of the title also determined her entitlement to … Continue reading In Re Jolly: CA 1900

Sutton v Sutton: 1882

A mortgage deed contained an express covenant to repay on demand the amount advanced. The principal sum and interest were secured by a mortgage of real property. A demand for payment was made, but not satisfied. An action was brought on the covenant (not on a simple contract debt) for the sum due under the … Continue reading Sutton v Sutton: 1882

Nocton v Lord Ashburton: HL 19 Jun 1914

The defendant solicitor had persuaded his client to release a charge, thus advancing the solicitor’s own subsequent charge on the same property. The action was started in the Chancery Division of the High Court. The statement of claim alleged fraud and claimed damages. At the trial the action was treated as action in the tort … Continue reading Nocton v Lord Ashburton: HL 19 Jun 1914

Unilever plc v Procter and Gamble Company: CA 4 Nov 1999

The defendant’s negotiators had asserted in an expressly ‘without prejudice’ meeting, that the plaintiff was infringing its patent and they threatened to bring an action for infringement. The plaintiff sought to bring a threat action under section 70 relying on the statements. The judge held the statement inadmissible. Held: The plaintiff’s appeal failed. Where there … Continue reading Unilever plc v Procter and Gamble Company: CA 4 Nov 1999

In re McHenry: CA 1894

The court considered the effect of the Limitation Acts on the rights of a secured creditor where there was an express shortfall provision in a mortgage deed. There was an express promise by a mortgagor to pay the difference on realisation of the . .