Category: Land

O’Brien and Another, in re 2 Turnpike Road, Tadcaster: LT 22 Feb 2008

LT RESTRICTIVE COVENANT – modification or discharge – obsoleteness – practical benefits of substantial value or advantage – injury – proposal for conservatory and removal of part of garden wall – effect of development on visual amenity to objectors’ retained land – planning permission granted – modification ordered – Law of Property Act 1925, section 84(1), grounds (a), (aa) and (c).

Citations:

[2008] EWLands LP – 8 – 2005

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 84(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.266327

Purfleet Farms Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions: CA 15 Oct 2002

The appellant had sought compensation after compulsory acquisition of his land. He had beaten the final offer made by the respondent, but the tribunal had judged the landowner’s offer itself to be so high that it awarded only part of the costs. He appealed.
Held: A finding as to the applicant’s own offer could not justify the reduction in the costs award. The tribunal could disallow costs for a special reason, but the normal award must allow for the reasonable and necessary expenses of determining the amount of the disputed compensation. Valuation is an exercise in judgement, and is imprecise. It would be rare to disallow costs on such a basis. In truth here the tribunal had been requested to make fruitless comparisons with other sites, which had unnecessarily incurred costs, and the award stood.

Judges:

Potter, Chadwick, Wall LLJ

Citations:

Gazette 31-Oct-2002, Times 07-Nov-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 1430, [2003] 02 EG 105, [2003] P and CR 324, [2002] RVR 368

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Land Compensation Act 1961 5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land, Costs

Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.177729

Das and others v Linden Mews Ltd: CA 1 May 2002

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 590

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Harris v Flower CA 1904
The servient land-owner alleged an excessive user by which it was attempted to impose an additional burden on the servient tenement in the use of a right of way for obtaining access to a factory erected partly on the land to which the right of way . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.171236

Betterment Properties (Weymouth) Ltd v James Carthy and Company Ltd: CA 15 Dec 2010

Dispute as to presence of public right of way.

Judges:

Wilson, Rimer, Black LJJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 1401

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Betterment Properties (Weymouth) Ltd v Dorset County Council ChD 2-Mar-2007
The company sought an order removing some 46 acres of land from designation as a village green. The claimant sought the amendment of the register. The parties disputed what evidence beyond that available to the committee making the decision should . .
See Also – Betterment Properties (Weymouth) Ltd v Dorset County Council CA 6-Feb-2008
A large area of land had been registered as a town or village green. The company, owner of the land, had succeeded in having the registration removed. The Council appealed, question whether the procedure undertaken by the High Court on such an . .
Appeal from – Betterment Properties (Weymouth) Ltd v Dorset County Council and Another ChD 23-Nov-2010
A claim was made for the rectification of the register of Town or Village Greens to remove the registration for their land.
Held: The register should be rectified. The user relied on had been neither peaceable nor ‘as of right’ as required. As . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 28 August 2022; Ref: scu.427170

Betterment Properties (Weymouth) Ltd v Dorset County Council and Another: ChD 23 Nov 2010

A claim was made for the rectification of the register of Town or Village Greens to remove the registration for their land.
Held: The register should be rectified. The user relied on had been neither peaceable nor ‘as of right’ as required. As to the justice of the case, the inhabitants of Wyke Regis would be entitled to enjoy rights over the land which should not have been conferred on them. However the claimant had purchased the land already subject to the registration. Morgan J said: ‘Having reviewed the evidence as to the position of the landowners, and in particular Betterment, my conclusions are as follows. The previous landowners could show that they would have been at a substantial disadvantage by reason of the land being registered as a green as compared to the situation they would have been in if the land had not been so registered. At the present time, Betterment can also show that it will be at a substantial disadvantage by reason of the registration as compared with the case where the land was not registered as a green. That difference is represented by a substantial amount in money terms. When Betterment bought the land, it paid more than the land was worth if the land were to remain registered as a green; it paid less than the value of the land if the registration were to be rectified. That is precisely what one would expect with a purchase of land where its value is subject to uncertainty as to a future event. Mr Petchey argued that Betterment had made a gamble. If the gamble were to pay off and the registration were to be rectified then, he said, Betterment would have a windfall, namely, the enhancement in value attributable to the removal of the registration. If, on the other hand, the gamble did not pay off and the registration continued then, he said, Betterment had taken that risk with its eyes open. I do not regard that submission, describing Betterment as having made a gamble, as any reliable guide to where the justice of the case lies as regards rectification. I regard it as more accurate to come to the conclusion that any landowner including Betterment, will be significantly worse off if the registration continues as compared with the alternative of the registration being rectified. I would therefore reach the conclusion that the continuation of a registration which ought not to have been made in the first instance will cause substantial harm to any landowner, including in this case’

Judges:

Morgan J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 3045 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Betterment Properties (Weymouth) Ltd v Dorset County Council ChD 2-Mar-2007
The company sought an order removing some 46 acres of land from designation as a village green. The claimant sought the amendment of the register. The parties disputed what evidence beyond that available to the committee making the decision should . .
See Also – Betterment Properties (Weymouth) Ltd v Dorset County Council CA 6-Feb-2008
A large area of land had been registered as a town or village green. The company, owner of the land, had succeeded in having the registration removed. The Council appealed, question whether the procedure undertaken by the High Court on such an . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Betterment Properties (Weymouth) Ltd v James Carthy and Company Ltd CA 15-Dec-2010
Dispute as to presence of public right of way. . .
Cited – Paddico (267) Ltd v Kirklees Metropolitan Council and Others ChD 23-Jun-2011
The company sought the rectification of the register of village greens to remove an entry relating to its land, saying that the Council had not properly considered the need properly to identify the locality which was said to have enjoyed the rights . .
Cited – Paddico (267) Ltd v Kirklees Metropolitan Council and Others ChD 23-Jun-2011
The company sought the rectification of the register of village greens to remove an entry relating to its land, saying that the Council had not properly considered the need properly to identify the locality which was said to have enjoyed the rights . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.426468

John Livingstone Mitchell, Esq of Parkhall v The Governor and Company of Undertakers for Raising Thames Water In York Buildings, &C: HL 21 Mar 1777

Charter – Superior and Vassal – Right to Coal. – The appellant laid claim to the coal of his lands of Madiston, although in granting the feu the superior had reserved the coal. Held that neither by the clan Act, nor the charter from the Crown, subsequent to the date of the superior’s attainder, was the coal granted to the appellant’s ancestors, but that the right to the same was vested in the respondents, as disponees of the Crown.

Citations:

[1777] UKHL 6 – Paton – 795

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Land

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.562004

Capt John Lockhart Ross of Balnagowan v Munro Ross of Pitcalny, and Miss J Ross: HL 5 Mar 1777

FeuDuty – Superior and Vassal.- A charter bound the vassal to deliver thirty bolls of corn yearly, or, in his option, 6s. 8d Scots for each boll, as conversion money. The subsequent investitures omitted the option of the conversion money. Held the superior not entitled to claim the ipsa corpora of the victual, but the conversion money only.

Citations:

[1777] UKHL 2 – Paton – 430, (1777) 2 Paton 430

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Land

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.562003

Lieut Andrew Sutherland v Elizabeth Countess of Sutherland, and Her Guardians, for Herself, and On Behalf of The Other Creditors of Skelbo: HL 26 Mar 1777

Positive Prescription – Absolute or Redeemable Right – Testing Clause.- A conveyance by charter was made of certain parts of an estate ex facie absolute, and bearing to be for a price then paid. Eight days before its date, a wadset had been granted of the same lands, in favour of the same party, which obliged the party to grant a letter of reversion. No letter of reversion was adduced, and no appearance of it on the records. The positive prescription and possession followed. Held, in the Court of Session, that the wadset right and charter qualified each other, and were to be read as one deed, and that the right was redeemable. Reversed in the House of Lords, and held that prescriptive possession on the absolute right, fortified the appellant’s title; and that the right was irredeemable. The contract of wadset having been executed by the aid of notaries; Held, that as one notary and two witnesses alone signed it, the wadset was bad.

Citations:

[1777] UKHL 2 – Paton – 415

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Land

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.562005

Alexander Irvine of Drum v George, Earl of Aberdeen, Mrs Margaret Duff or Culter, and Others: HL 16 Apr 1777

Decree of Sale – Entail – General and Special Charge.- Entail executed in shape of a procuratory of resignation, upon which charter was obtained, and this charter, but not the procuratory, produced judicially before the Court, and recorded in the Register of Tailzies. Held, that this was not perfect registration of the entail, and that the charter was not the original entail, but the procuratory. Held, circumstances not sufficient to set aside a decree of sale impugned on fraud. Held that a general and special charge, as the warrants of an adjudication cannot be called on after 20 years.

Citations:

[1777] UKHL 2 – Paton – 419, (1777) 2 Paton 419

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Land

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.562007

Archibald Douglas, Esq In 1St and 2D Appeals v Earl of Selkirk In Second Appeal: HL 27 Mar 1777

HL Entail – Clause of Return – Prohibitory Clause – Fiar – Negative and Positive Prescription – Sasine – Revocation – Conveyance – ‘Heirs whatsoever’ – Competency of Parole to Explain this Clause – Heir Entitled to Challenge on Deathred

Citations:

[1777] UKHL 2 – Paton – 449, (1777) 2 Paton 449

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Land

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.562002

Trail Riders’ Fellowship and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Dorset County Council: Admn 2 Oct 2012

The claimants challenged rejection of five applications under section 5 of the 1981 Act for modification orders allowing the upgrade of routes to provide vehicular public rights of way. The applications had been submitted using digital mapping. The Council said that the maps did not accord with the legislation.
Held: The application failed: ‘there was no strict compliance with the requirements of paragraph 1 of Schedule 14 to the 1981 Act. The maps which accompanied the applications were not drawn to a scale of no less than 1:25,000.’ Moreover, the departures were not such as to fall within a de minimis principle: ‘a map to a scale of 1:50,000 is very different from a map to a scale of 1:25,000, in particular, in terms of the detail relevant to the routes of the claimed ways and their impact relative to surrounding features.’

Judges:

Supperstone J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 2634 (Admin), [2013] PTSR 302

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 53(5), Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, Wildlife and Countryside (Definitive Maps and Statements) Regulations 1993, Highways Act 1980 130

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Winchester College and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs CA 29-Apr-2008
The college appealed against modifications of definitive map to upgrade two footpaths to byways open to all traffic. The college was circled by footpaths which it wished to protect when the council constructed a new bypass.
Held: The College’s . .
Cited – Maroudas v Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs CA 18-Mar-2010
The claimant appealed against an order refusing his request to quash a footpath modification order. The request had not been signed as required.
Held: The appeal succeeded. ‘subject to the de minimis principle, an application must strictly . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Trail Riders Fellowship and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Dorset County Council and Others CA 20-May-2013
The Fellowship had applied for orders upgrading public rights of way. The council rejected the applications saying that the digital mapping software used to repare the maps submitted were not compliant with the requirements of the legislation. They . .
At first Instance – Trail Riders Fellowship and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Dorset County Council SC 18-Mar-2015
Objection had been made that a plan, used to register a right of way before it would disappear if un-registered, was to the wrong scale and that therefore the application was ineffetive.
Held: The Council’s appeal failed. The plan was too . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Administrative

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.464625

Bank of Scotland v Hussain and Another: ChD 5 Nov 2010

The second defendant had, under the undue influence of the first defendant sold him her house at an undervalue. She also asserted non est factum. He then charged it to the claimant. The court was asked which innocent party should prevail. She said she had been in actual occupation at the time of the charge. The bank said that the defendant was estopped from raising now issues which could have been brought in the earlier proceedings.

Judges:

Newey J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 2812 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Land Registration Act 1925 70(1)(g)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Henderson v Henderson 20-Jul-1843
Abuse of Process and Re-litigation
The court set down the principles to be applied in abuse of process cases, where a matter was raised again which should have been dealt with in earlier proceedings.
Sir James Wigram VC said: ‘In trying this question I believe I state the rule . .
Cited – Thoday v Thoday CA 1964
The court discussed the difference between issue estoppel, and action estoppel: ‘The particular type of estoppel relied upon by the husband is estoppel per rem judicatam. This is a generic term which in modern law includes two species. The first . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Undue Influence

Updated: 26 August 2022; Ref: scu.425781

Lambeth Overseers v London County Council: HL 1897

The House was asked whether the county council, which owned and maintained a park under a power accorded by a local Act of Parliament, were in rateable occupation of it.
Held: Lord Halsbury said that: ‘there is no possibility of beneficial occupation to the county council; they are incapable by law of using it for any profitable purpose; they must allow the public the free and unrestricted use of it.’ A park dedicated in perpetuity has no occupier.
Lord Herschell said that the Committee of Management are ‘merely custodians . . to hold it and manage it for the use of the public’.

Judges:

Lord Halsbury LC, Lord Herschell

Citations:

[1897] AC 625

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Barkas, Regina (on The Application of ) v North Yorkshire County Council and Another SC 6-Mar-2014
The Court was asked as to the registration of a playing field as a ‘town or village green’. Local residents asserted that their use of the land, having been ‘as of right’ required the registration. They now appealed against rejection of that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Rating

Updated: 26 August 2022; Ref: scu.543939

Beazer Homes Ltd v County Council of Durham: CA 13 Oct 2010

The appellant had sold land next to its own for use as a school. Access rights were given to assist construction of the school. The council wanted to use the rights in what was no to be a competing residential development. The appellant wished to use the land as a ransom strip. The council argued that the rights to construct and have adopted a roadway and services over the land were not so restricted by virtue of the 1959 Act.

Judges:

Mummery, Lloyd, Sullivan LJJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 1175

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Highways Act 1959 39(1) 40 202, Highways (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1961 11(1), Highways Act 1980

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425609

Roberts, Re 7 Storm, 85 Banks Road: UTLC 8 Sep 2010

UTLC RESTRICTIVE COVENANT – discharge or modification – restriction preventing redecoration or alteration of building exterior – requirement to replace patio doors/windows – whether covenant obsolete – whether proposed use reasonable – whether practical benefits of substantial value or advantage secured by restriction – whether discharge or modification would cause injury – application refused – Law of Property Act 1925, section 84 (1)(a), (aa) and (c)

Judges:

P R Francis FRICS

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 320 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 84(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425239

Hayden, Re The Waves, 2 Hengist Road: UTLC 15 Sep 2010

UTLC RESTRICTIVE COVENANT – modification – obsoleteness – practical benefits of substantial value or advantage – implicit agreement – injury – application to permit erection of property in accordance with planning consent granted on 28 February 2007 – breaches – status of application – planning issues – modification allowed – Law of Property Act 1925 section 84(1), grounds (a) (aa) (b) and (c)

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 332 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425237

Obsidian FG Ltd and Others v Secretary of State for Transport: UTLC 20 Aug 2010

UTLC COMPULSORY PURCHASE – tubes of subsoil acquired for Channel Tunnel Rail Link -whether compensation payable for leases created after service of notice to treat – value – held nominal amount payable as no market for acquired property.

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 299 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425232

Zenios and Another, Re Ingram Avenue: UTLC 26 Jul 2010

UTLC RESTRICTIVE COVENANT – modification – addition of first floor above garage in Hampstead Garden Suburb – effect on character of area – policy guidance – precedent – weight to be given to local planning authority approval – whether power to prevent development a practical benefit of substantial advantage to trust – held that it was – application refused – Law of Property Act 1925 s 84(1)(aa) and (c)

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 260 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425229

Thomas and Others v Bridgend County Borough Council: UTLC 29 Jul 2010

UTLC COMPENSATION–whether the 3 year time limit provided by section 19(3) of the Land Compensation Act 1973 for making a claim for compensation in respect of depreciation in value of interest in land caused by the use of a highway is incompatible with the claimants’ Convention rights under article 1 of the First Protocol and/or article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights and if so whether the section can be interpreted under section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 so as to be compatible

Judges:

HH Judge Jarman QC

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 268 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Land Compensation Act 1973 19(3), European Convention on Human Rights 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Thomas and Others v Bridgend County Borough Council CA 26-Jul-2011
Carnwath LJ considered the effect of Bugajny and other cases after Sporrong: ‘ Later cases (see eg Bugajny v Poland (Application No 22531/05) (unreported) given 6 November 2007, para 56 and following) have given further guidance on the practical . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Human Rights

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425226

Abbey Investments Ltd v London Development Agency: UTLC 16 Sep 2010

UTLC COMPENSATION – compulsory purchase – site of former plant hire depot – planning permission – whether planning permission to be assumed on the basis that land allocated in the Development Plan – whether any other expectation of planning consent as hope value – development costs – valuation – compensation determined at andpound;1,903,689 – Land Compensation Act 1961ss. 14(3) and 16(3)

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 325 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Land Compensation Act 1961 14(3) 16(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land, Damages

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425236

Tew v South Northamptonshire Council: UTLC 20 Sep 2010

UTLC COMPULSORY PURCHASE – disused public house in poor condition – value as public house/restaurant – comparables – value for residential development – residual valuation – whether developer demand still buoyant at valuation date – whether allowance to be made for interest – architect’s fees – developer’s profit.

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 333 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Hepworth v Pickles ChD 2-Nov-1899
The parties contracted for the sale and purchase of a shop which had been used continuously and openly with an off-licence for the sale of alcohol for twenty four years. After exchange, a restrictive covenant was revealed against the use of land as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425240

Potter v London Borough of Hillingdon: UTLC 28 Jun 2010

UTLC COMPENSATION – compulsory purchase – land bought for public open space – development of offices and park on reclaimed land – special value to developer – whether to be left out of account under Pointe Gourde – held not to be left out of account – hope value in connection with possible third runway at Heathrow Airport – hope value exceeding value on other bases – Compensation andpound;1,000,000

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 212 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425223

High Street Winterbourne, Re: UTLC 24 Jun 2010

UTLC RESTRICTIVE COVENANT – modification – proposed development of a detached house adjoining boundary of objector’s property – whether practical benefits of substantial value or advantage – application granted on ground (aa) – compensation awarded of andpound;6,875 – Law of Property Act 1925 s84(1)(aa) and (c)

Judges:

Trott FRICS

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 206 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 84

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425222

Global Financial Recoveries Ltd v Jones: ChD 13 Jan 2000

The defendant entered into a mortgage loan. The property was repossessed and he faced an action for recovery of the shortfall. It was argued that the claim was out of time after six years. The court held that the debt remained a specialty debt and the twelve year period applied, but nevertheless, the actual claimant claimed under an assignment which had assigned only the personal element of the debt, but not the benefit of the covenant within the mortgage deed. An assignment of the debt alone operated to assign that debt, and not the right given under the mortgage, and so a claim under the assignment was limited as under contract.

Citations:

Gazette 13-Jan-2000, Times 23-Feb-2000, [2000] BPIR 1029

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – West Bromwich Building Society v Wilkinson HL 30-Jun-2005
The Society had taken possession of a property in 1989. It located the defendants many years later and sought payment of the excess after deduction of the proceeds of sale, and for interest. The borrowers claimed the debt was expired by limitation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Land, Banking, Limitation

Updated: 24 August 2022; Ref: scu.80875

Ashby v Kilduff: ChD 30 Jul 2010

The parties had been in a relationship. The claimant asserted that properties were bought by him and held on trust by the defendant. He had lost an expensive court action and said that the purported sale to the defendant created a trust.

Judges:

Bernard Livesey QC

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 2034 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land, Trusts

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.421583

Stadium Capital Holdings (No 2) Ltd v St Marylebone Property Company Plc Clear Channel UK Ltd: CA 15 Jul 2010

The court considered a trespass to the claimant’s airspace by the erection of a commercial advertising hoarding without permission. It had generated significant revenue for the trespasser. The trial judge had refused a very late application by the defendant (made after he had reserved his judgment) to adjourn the question of quantum, and went on to award damages on the basis of the entire fee income obtained by the trespasser over the 3-year period of the trespass.
Held: The appeal was allowed, and remitted for consideration of quantum. There should have been a splt trial. An award of 100% of the gross profits earned from the exploitation of land by trespasser is at the very top end of the range of awards of damages on a restitutionary basis, to be reserved for the most serious cases.

Judges:

Sullivan, Patten LJJ, Peter Smith J

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 952

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Ramzan v Brookwide Ltd ChD 8-Oct-2010
The claimant owned a flying freehold room butting into the defendant’s property. Whilst the claimant’s property was unoccupied, the defendant broke through into the room, blocked off the door to the claimant’s property, and included the room in the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Land

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.421540

Mitchell v Potter: CA 20 Jan 2005

By a conveyance the owner of a spring granted to a neighbour the right to take and use water. He now said that the extent of water taken was excessive.
Held: No identical gtant was found from decided cases. The grant was not an easement but a profit a prendre as argued, but a simple right to take the amount of water described. The grant of the right to effect in priority to the spring owner’s own needs for his land. He retained the right to the residue of water only.

Judges:

Sedley LJ, Jonathan Parker LJ, Jacob LJ

Citations:

Times 24-Jan-2005, [2005] EWCA Civ 88

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Beauchamp v Frome Rural District Council CA 1938
The court considered a grant of rights to take water. Sir Wilfred Greene MR said: ‘It was a grant of the residue of what should reach them after the water had been taken by the persons entitled to takle water from those branches’ . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.221717

Area Estates Ltd v Weir: CA 20 Jul 2010

The parties contracted for the sale and purchase of land with vacant possession. It was subject to a lease which the seller said had been surrendered, and it refused to accept any requisitions of objections. After exchange it appeared that the tenant was bankrupt, and the surrender ineffective in law. Upon discovery of this the purchaser sought rescission. The seller now appealed an order giving summary judgment rejecting their defences.
Held: The vendor, properly advised, could and should have known that the purported surrender, unsupported by any order of court, was ineffective. His appeal failed.

Judges:

Carnwath LJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 801, [2010] 42 EG 106, [2010] BPIR 1459, [2010] NPC 84, [2010] 30 EG 62 (CS)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Insolvency Act 1986 284(4)(a), Law of Property Act 1925 42(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – In Re Banister; Broad v Munton CA 1879
Property was sold from a deceased estate under an order of the Court.The purchaser found the title was defective.
Held: A condition in a contract for the sale of land which purports to oust any right to object to the title or to raise . .
Cited – Heywood v Mallalieu 1883
A house was sold at auction by a mortgagee ‘subject to any easements.’ It turned out to be subject to an easement in favour of a neighbour entitling her to come and wash her clothes in the kitchen. The vendor’s solicitor had been told that the . .
Cited – Cumberland Consolidated Holdings Limited v Ireland CA 1946
A vendor of a warehouse left in the cellars of a warehouse rubbish including bags of hardened cement which would be difficult to remove, and which affected the value of the property and precluded the proper use of the cellar. The buyer complained . .
Cited – Becker v Partridge CA 1966
The contract for sale of an underlease provided that the vendor’s title ‘has been accepted . . and the purchaser shall raise no requisition or objection thereto’. there had been breaches of covenant in the superior lease giving grounds for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Contract

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.420973

Becker v Partridge: CA 1966

The contract for sale of an underlease provided that the vendor’s title ‘has been accepted . . and the purchaser shall raise no requisition or objection thereto’. there had been breaches of covenant in the superior lease giving grounds for forfeiture. Although the vendor did not have actual knowledge, he had ‘constructive notice’, because his solicitor had neglected to inspect the superior lease, as he would have been entitled to do when taking the underlease.
Held: The clause was ineffective. A purchaser of a leasehold title is concerned to ascertained that the lease (or any superior lease) is not liable for forfeiture for breach of covenant already committed. It is the duty of the vendor to deduce and then convey a good title and if he relies upon the terms of the contract to shift the risk of any defect in title to the purchaser, the language must clearly do so. General words which did not identify any specific defect in title were inadequate to protect the vendor against liability for a serious defect which he could easily have discovered.

Judges:

Danckwerts LJ

Citations:

[1966] 2 QB 155

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Area Estates Ltd v Weir CA 20-Jul-2010
The parties contracted for the sale and purchase of land with vacant possession. It was subject to a lease which the seller said had been surrendered, and it refused to accept any requisitions of objections. After exchange it appeared that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.420981

Blount v Layard: CA 1888

The court said how unfortunate it would be if the owner of an exclusive fishery were forced to insist on his rights by reason of a fear that tolerated fishing by members of the public might crystallise into a public right of fishing, which it would not do.

Judges:

Bowen LJ

Citations:

[1891] 2 Ch 681

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Barton v The Church Commissioners for England ChD 15-Dec-2008
The commissioners claimed a right by prescription to all fish to be taken in a stretch of the River Wye. The claimant was to moor a barge on the river.
Held: The court explained the nature and legal status of fisheries in the law going back to . .
Footnote – Smith v Andrews 1891
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.279923

Chan, Chun v Leung, Ho: CA 29 Jul 2002

The claimant sought to assert her interest in a house purchased by a company in debt to the respondent for whom she had worked and with whom she had had a relationship. The company was insolvent. She claimed he had promised her a house, and that it had been purchased under that promise, and that she was protected under both 1996 Acts. The defendant appealed orders declaring her interest.
Held: the decision followed largely from the judge’s assessment of the parties and the exercise of his discretion. The claimant had acted to her detriment in accepting the gift, and the property which was proper for the two when living together remained appropriate when she lived there alone.

Judges:

Lord Justice Rix, Mr Justice Nelson, Lord Justice Johnathan Parker

Citations:

[2002] EWCA] Civ 1075

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Family Law Act 1996 33(3) 33(4), Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 14

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset HL 29-Mar-1990
The house had been bought during the marriage but in the husband’s sole name. The plaintiff’s charge secured the husband’s overdraft. The bank issued possession proceedings. Mr Rosset had left, but Mrs Rosset claimed, as against the bank an interest . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Trusts

Updated: 20 August 2022; Ref: scu.174422

Regina (Hargrave and Another) v Stroud District Council: CA 22 Jul 2002

The applicants had sought to vary a footpath to move it further away from their house. The parish council objected. The council had decided that it would be expedient under the Act to divert it, but went on to decide against a diversion and against referring the decision to the Secretary of State. The land owner appealed a decision upholding the council’s decision
Held: The Act left discretions with the Local Authority, both as to whether to order the footpath to be diverted and as to whether the question was to be referred to the Secretary of State, even after it had decided that it would be expedient to move it. It had no duty to make the order particularly where there were sustained objections.

Judges:

Schiemann LJ, Buxton LJ and Longmore LJ

Citations:

Times 05-Aug-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 1281, [2003] JPL 351, [2003] 1 P and CR 1

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Highways Act 1980 119

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina (Hargrave and Another) v Stroud District Council Admn 7-Dec-2001
When someone objected to a public footpath order, the council has a discretion as to whether the case should be referred to the Secretary of State. In the absence of an obligation, the judicial review of the council’s decision not to make such a . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Regina (Hargrave and Another) v Stroud District Council Admn 7-Dec-2001
When someone objected to a public footpath order, the council has a discretion as to whether the case should be referred to the Secretary of State. In the absence of an obligation, the judicial review of the council’s decision not to make such a . .
Cited – Regina (Ashbrook) v East Sussex County Council CA 20-Nov-2002
The claimant complained that the respondent had failed properly to secure removal of an admitted obstruction to a public footpath. The landowner had applied for a diversion of the footpath, which the respondent recommended for adoption, but the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Local Government, Land

Updated: 20 August 2022; Ref: scu.174698

Willson v Greene (Moss third party): ChD 1971

The court could take into account objective surrounding circumstances indicating where the boundary line had been agreed and marked out by the parties. Thus extrinsic evidence of where the land was identified by pegs was admissible and the extrinsic evidence was admitted.

Judges:

Foster J

Citations:

[1971] 1 All ER 1098, [1971] 1 WLR 635

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Webb v Nightingale CA 8-Mar-1957
A boundary line which the parties had agreed and marked out could supersede a plan on a conveyance expressly said to be for identification only. Lord Denning: ‘It seems to me that the line of white stakes with the white peg in the south-east corner . .

Cited by:

Cited – Stephenson and Another v Johnson and Another CA 12-Jul-2000
There had been a dispute as to the correct boundary between two properties in North Yorkshire. The land had been in common ownership until 1973. The 1973 conveyance showed the boundary in a position which the claimants said was determinative. The . .
Cited – Lovering and Another v Atkinson and Others PC 18-May-2020
(Court of Appeal of Guernsey (Civil Division)) Conveyancing dispute between the partners of a firm of advocates and notaries public and their clients as to whether AFR were negligent in allowing their clients to purchase a residential property with . .
Cited – Semple v Anthony and Anthony (Evidence) LRA 13-Jan-2012
LRA Determined Boundary – whether title plans determinative of the boundary between car-parking spaces – whether extrinsic evidence admissible as an aid to the construction of the transfers – whether the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 20 August 2022; Ref: scu.658852

Rockeagle Ltd v Alsop Wilkinson: CA 1991

The position of a stakeholder and the two potential claimants to a stake is the subject of a tripartite contract. The relationship between the stakeholder and the two potential claimants is contractual, not fiduciary. The money is not trust money. The stakeholder is not a trustee or agent; he is a principal who owes contractual obligations to the potential claimants to the stake.
At common law, before settlement, if both parties agree as to the way in which the deposit should be paid or otherwise transferred, the stakeholder is obliged to follow that requirement.
Farquharson LJ said: ‘It is clear from the authorities, and in particular Potters v Loppert [1973] Ch. 399, that the duties and authority of a stakeholder lie in contract or quasi-contract and not as trustee’.

Citations:

[1992] Ch 47, [1991] 4 All ER 659

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Potters v Loppert ChD 1973
The court was asked as to the liability of an estate agent to account for interest earned upon a pre-contract deposit paid to him expressly as a stakeholder. No contract was made.
Held: A stakeholder is not a trustee or agent; he is a . .

Cited by:

Cited – Manzanilla Limited v Corton Property and Investments Limited; John MacIver (Southport) Limited; Rootbrights Limited and Halliwell Landau (a Firm) CA 13-Nov-1996
Millett LJ set out the principles applicable to a deposit paid on a land transaction being held by a stakeholder: ”Where a stakeholder is involved, there are normally two separate contracts to be considered. There is first the bilateral contract . .
Cited – Get Nominees Limited v Trinity Welsh Homes Limited ChD 9-Sep-2014
Trial of an action under which the claimant seeks specific performance of an agreement made between itself and the defendant dated 22 June 2010 relating to a freehold property at Bethel Road, Caernarfon, Gwynedd for a sum of andpound;613,500. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Land

Updated: 20 August 2022; Ref: scu.550153

Coleen Properties Ltd v Minister of Housing and Local Government: CA 26 Jan 1971

The Minister confirmed a compulsory purchase order despite it having been made without any supporting evidence.
Held: The order was set aside. The Minister had erred in not following his Inspector’s conclusion that a compulsory purchase order was not ‘reasonably necessary’ under section 43(2) of the 1957 Act, when there was no material on which he could properly reach a different conclusion.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘I know that on matters of planning policy the Minister can overrule the Inspector, and need not send it back to him, as happened in Lord Luke of Pavenham v Minister of Housing and Local Government. But the question of what is ‘reasonably necessary’ is not planning policy. It is an inference of fact on which the Minister should not overrule the Inspector’s recommendation unless there is material sufficient for the purpose. There was none here.’
Sachs LJ said that whereas the Inspector ‘may well be looked on as an expert for the purpose of forming an opinion of fact, the Minister is in a different position . . no Minister can personally be an expert on all matters of professional opinion with which his officers deal with from day to day.’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR, Sachs LJ, Buckley LJ

Citations:

[1971] 1 All ER 1049, (1971) 1 WLR 433, [1971] EWCA Civ 11

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1957 43(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Chant v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and another Admn 1-Jul-2002
The applicant challenged an order requiring him to discontinue use of land on which were listed buildings in need of repair. The authority had concluded that compulsory purchase would not be sufficient to achieve the result required. The land owner . .
Cited – Wind Prospect Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another Admn 5-Dec-2014
The claimant appealed against refusal of permission to erect a six turbine wind farm. The inspector had recommended the plan, but the defendant had decided against it.
Held: The claim failed. The planning inspector’s report is the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Administrative, Housing

Updated: 20 August 2022; Ref: scu.181252

In re Downshire Settled Estates: CA 1953

A scheme of arrangements was proposed on behalf of infant beneficiaries to three settlements. The object of the scheme was to avoid losses to the beneficiaries by reason of inheritance tax.
Held: The court rejected the contention that it had an inherent jurisdiction to vary the beneficial interests in a trust fund designated by the settlor. The section provides a power to the Court to approve advantageous dealings. In those circumstances, if the power to be given to the trustee was not a specific power for a particular dealing but rather a wide discretionary power to alter the terms of the trust then the case did not fall within the section.
Sir Francis Evershed MR said: ‘We have already pointed out that neither trustees nor the court itself at any time, before 1925, had any general power to depart from the precise directions (provided that they were within the law) that a settlor thought proper to declare. If Parliament, in enacting section 57, had intended to confer this power on the court it is, in our view, inconceivable that it would not have done so in express terms, having regard not only to the novelty but also to the width of the jurisdiction that it was creating; and it is equally incredible that it should have done so without imposing any kind of limit, other than expediencey [sic], upon the extent to which, or the manner in which, the court was to exercise its powers.’
Denning LJ said: ‘The practice of the profession in these cases is the best evidence of what the law is: indeed it makes law.’

Judges:

Sir Francis Evershed MR, Sir Charles Romer LJ, Denning LJ

Citations:

[1953] Ch 218

Statutes:

Trustee Act 1927 57

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council etc HL 29-Jul-1998
Right of Recovery of Money Paid under Mistake
Kleinwort Benson had made payments to a local authority under swap agreements which were thought to be legally enforceable when made. Subsequently, a decision of the House of Lords, (Hazell v. Hammersmith and Fulham) established that such swap . .
Appeal from – Chapman v Chapman HL 25-Mar-1954
It was suggested to the House that: ‘A judge of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice has an inherent jurisdiction, in the execution of the trusts of a settlement, to sanction, on behalf of infant beneficiaries and unborn persons, a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Trusts

Updated: 20 August 2022; Ref: scu.236531

Re Citro, Lloyds Bank plc v Byrne and Byrne, Abbey National plc v Moss and others and Barclays Bank plc v Hendricks: CA 1991

Trustees in bankruptcy of bankrupt husbands successfully appealed for the removal of provisos delaying the operation of orders for sale made under s30 in respect of each husband’s matrimonial home for the benefit of that husband’s wife who had been declared by the judge at first instance to be an equal owner with the husband of the beneficial interest in the matrimonial home. Bingham LJ: ‘Section 30 of the Law of Property Act 1925 confers two discretion’s. First, it confers a discretion on ‘any person interested’ to ‘apply to the court …. for an order directing the trustees for sale to give effect thereto.’ Secondly, it confers a discretion on the court to ‘make such order as it thinks fit’. The section contains no express limitation on the exercise of these discretions but neither is it altogether unfettered.’ The interests of a bankrupt spouse’s creditors would, absent exceptional circumstances, usually prevail over those of the other spouse and children. Accordingly it reduced to six months the period of postponement of the order for sale of the property made by the judge below.
Nourse LJ: ‘One of the consequences of the 1925 Property Legislation is that the legal estate in any property which is beneficially owned jointly or in common is necessarily held on trust for sale and is thus subject to the jurisdiction of the court under s. 30. From its inception the section was one of wide application. But is seems that before Jones -v- Challenger [above] it had not been the means of making an order for the sale of a former matrimonial home ….’ and as to what counted as exceptional circumstances: ‘ What then are exceptional circumstances? As the cases show, it is not uncommon for a wife with young children to be faced with eviction in circumstances where the realization of her beneficial interest will not produce enough to buy a comparable house in the same neighbourhood or indeed elsewhere. And, if she has to move elsewhere, there may be problems over schooling and so forth. Such circumstances, while engendering a natural sympathy in all who hear of them, cannot be described as exceptional. They are the melancholy consequences of debt and improvidence with which every civilised society has been familiar.’

Judges:

Bingham LJ, Nourse LJ

Citations:

[1991] 1 FLR 71, [1991] Ch 142, (1991) 23 HLR 472

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 30

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Bank of Baroda v Dhillon and Dhillon CA 17-Oct-1997
A property had been bought in the husband’s name. The wife made financial contributions to repayment of the charge, and thereby acquired an interest in it. The property was later charged by the paper owner to the claimant, who sought possession . .
Cited – Donohoe v Ingram ChD 20-Jan-2006
The appellant had lived with the bankrupt for several years, and sought an order delayng sale of the house they had lived in until their children had grown up. She said the circumstances were exceptional.
Held: The fact that the delay might . .
Cited – Barca v Mears ChD 2005
While the categories of exceptional case which might allow delay in the sale of a bankrupt’s property are not circumscribed by the previous case-law, the only cases subsequent to In Re Citro in which orders for possession and sale have been withheld . .
Cited – Nicholls v Lan and Another ChD 26-May-2006
The bankrupt had been discharged from his bankruptcy, but his share in the family home remained vested in the trustee who applied for the sale of the home. His wife applied to set aside an order for sale on the basis that it interfered with her . .
Cited – Gotham v Doodes CA 25-Jul-2006
The former bankrupt resisted sale of his property by the trustee, saying that enforcement was barred by limitation. He and his wife bought the property in early 1988, and he was made bankrupt in October 1988. He was dischaged from bankruptcy in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Insolvency

Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.197883

Regent Oil Co Ltd v JA Gregory (Hatch End) Ltd: CA 1966

No general distinction is to be drawn between the two types of mortgage and sub-mortgage. The court considered the practice for a mortgagor to attorn tenant to his mortgagee. The tenancy contained no covenants and was merely a device to give the mortgagee a right to obtain summary judgment for possession under the Small Tenements Recovery Act 1838.
Held: It was effective to create the relationship of landlord and tenant:
Harman LJ said: ‘the new charge by way of legal mortgage created by section 87 was intended to be a substitute in all respects for a mortgage by demise, and anything which would be good in the one is good in the other. It would indeed be a trap if the rights of the mortgagee depended on whether his charge were created in one way or the other.’
Salmon LJ said: ‘In my view it is plain that the policy of the legislature, as expressed in section 87, was to put a mortgagee in exactly the same legal position whether he entered into a mortgage in the form of a legal charge or in the form of a sub-demise. The legal effect was to be the same whichever form was chosen. In the one case the mortgagee is the tenant; in the other he is deemed to be so.’

Judges:

Harman LJ, Salmon LJ, Willmer LJ

Citations:

[1966] Ch 402

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 87

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Approved – Credit and Mercantile Plc v Feliciangela Marks CA 14-May-2004
The defendant had charged her home to the claimant and fallen into arrears. There was a sub-charge executed on the same day in favour of the Bank of Scotland (BOS) under which the claimant agreed to repay to BOS the amount it owed to them.
Cited – Ingram and Palmer-Tomkinson (Executors of the Estate of Lady Jane Lindsay Morgan Ingram Deceased) v Commissioners of Inland Revenue CA 28-Jul-1997
The deceased had first conveyed property to her solicitor. Leases back were then created in her favour, and then the freeholds were conveyed at her direction to her children and grandchildren. They were potentially exempt transfers.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.197903

Everitt v Budhram and Another: ChD 20 May 2009

The trustee in bankruptcy appealed against rejection of his claim for the sale of the home in which the bankrupts each held a one half share. The bankruptcies arose from non payment of council tax. The principle sums had been repaid, and the outstanding matters were the trustee’s costs. The bankrupts had not co-operated, and the normal automatic discharge had been suspended. The only substantial asset was the family home which had sufficient equity. The bankrupt and his wife both faced serious medical issues, and the husband lacked capacity. The District judge had made adverse comments about costs being unnecessarily accrued by the methods of enforcement chosen by Oxford City Council.
Held: The district judge should not have gone behind the making of the bankruptcy order. An order was made for the sale subject to a delay of one year to allow the bankrupts opportunity to manage their affairs.
. A bankrupt’s needs will include his financial, medical, emotional and mental requirements. The definition had not previously been tested in the courts. The judge may have fallen into error when placing such weight on the medical needs of the person living with the bankrupt.

Judges:

Henderson J

Citations:

Times 14-Jul-2009, [2009] EWHC 1219 (Ch), [2010] BPIR 567, [2010] Ch 170, [2010] 2 WLR 637

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996, Insolvency Act 1986 335A, Insolvency Act 1986

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Wright and Another (Liquidators of SHB Realisations Ltd) v The Prudential Assurance Company Ltd ChD 6-Mar-2018
IVA is a special form of contract
Liquidators asked the court whether sums sought by the insolvent company’s landlords were payable and or provable. Under an IVA, the copany had been paying reduced rents, but the arrangement document provided that the full rents would be restored on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insolvency, Land, Insolvency, Rating

Updated: 18 August 2022; Ref: scu.416193

Kernott v Jones: CA 26 May 2010

The unmarried couple bought a property together. Mr K appealed against an award of 90% of the property to his former partner. The court was asked, whether, following Stack v Dowden, it was open to the court to find that the parties had agreed that their interests should be ambulatory and held unequally.
Held: (Jacob LJ dissenting). Mr Kernott’s appeal succeeded, and the division of 50-50 was restored.

Judges:

Wall, Jacob, Rimer LJJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 578, [2010] WLR (D) 136, [2010] 22 EG 106, [2010] BPIR 853, [2010] 3 All ER 423, [2010] 1 WLR 2401, [2010] 2 FCR 372, [2010] Fam Law 806

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 14

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At High Court – Jones v Kernott ChD 10-Jul-2009
The couple were unmarried but had bought a property in joint names. Ms Jones had contributed the overwhelming share of the purchase price, and had paid all outgoings after Mr Kernott left several years ago. The County court judge had awarded J 90%, . .
Cited – Stack v Dowden HL 25-Apr-2007
The parties had cohabited for a long time, in a home bought by Ms Dowden. After the breakdown of the relationship, Mr Stack claimed an equal interest in the second family home, which they had bought in joint names. The House was asked whether, when . .
Cited – G v G (Minors: Custody appeal) CA 1985
A court should take great care before setting aside a decision of a judge which had involved the exercise of a judicial discretion. The court considered the duty of an appellate court in a children case: ‘What this court should seek to do is to . .

Cited by:

Cited – Williams v Lawrence and Another ChD 28-Jul-2011
The claimant, as trustee for the deceased’s insolvent estate, sought a declaration that a transfer of the deceased’s share in property made by the executors was void as being at an undervalue. The property was subject to a right of occupation in . .
Cited – Jones v Kernott SC 9-Nov-2011
Unmarried Couple – Equal division displaced
The parties were unmarried but had lived together. They now disputed the shares in which they had held the family home. It had been bought in joint names, but after Mr Kernott (K) left in 1993, Ms Jones (J) had made all payments on the house. She . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Trusts, Land

Updated: 18 August 2022; Ref: scu.416103

Aytan and Others v The Secretary of State for Transprot: UTLC 2 Oct 2009

UTLC COMPENSATION – Compulsory Purchase – tubes of subsoil acquired for Channel Tunnel Rail Link – determination of value sought where no communication possible with claimants or where claimants have agreed compensation but not completed conveyance – held nominal amount payable as no market for acquired property – compensation of andpound;50 awarded in each case – rule 6 compensation – directions sought in respect of claimants where no agreement possible – treatment of mortgagees

Citations:

[2009] UKUT 194 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 18 August 2022; Ref: scu.415037

Forty-Five Holdings Ltd v Grosvenor (Mayfair) Estate: UTLC 16 Dec 2009

UTLC LE- marriage value – LR HUDA 1993 schedule 6 paragraph 4 – nominee purchaser and both qualifying tenants all the same person – development value from potential to add a storey- whether landlord entitled to a share of such development value as part of marriage value.

Citations:

[2009] UKUT 234 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 18 August 2022; Ref: scu.415047

LY v Liverpool City Council: UTLC 29 Apr 2010

COMPENSATION – compulsory purchase – open market value of restaurant – analysis of comparable rentals and yields – analysis of comparable leasehold sale – cost of repairs and refurbishment – compensation assessed at pounds 55,000

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 120 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 18 August 2022; Ref: scu.415016

Welford v Transport for London: UTLC 9 Apr 2010

UTLC COMPENSATION – compulsory purchase of part of forecourt to commercial premises and half road width for highway improvements – loss of rent and rental voids – injurious affection – valuation assumptions – personal time – pre-reference costs – Land Compensation Act 1961 section 5, rule (6) and Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 section 7 – compensation determined at pounds 8,641.50

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 99 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 18 August 2022; Ref: scu.415018