Category: Land

Stebbing v Metropolitan Board of Works: 1870

In compensation for compulsory purchase (in this case, of graveyards), ‘value’ means value to the owner, not value to the purchaser. The graveyards were therefore of little or no value to the rector.
Cockburn CJ said: ‘When Parliament gives compulsory powers, and provides that compensation shall be made to the person from whom property is taken, for the loss that he sustains, it is intended that he shall be compensated to the extent of his loss; and that his loss shall be tested by what was the value of the thing to him, not by what will be its value to the persons acquiring it.’

Judges:

Cockburn CJ

Citations:

(1870) LR 6 QB 37

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Waters and others v Welsh Development Agency HL 29-Apr-2004
Land was to be compulsorily purchased. A large development required the land to be used to create a nature reserve. The question was how and if at all the value of the overall scheme should be considered when assessing the compensation for this . .
Cited – Transport for London (London Underground Ltd) v Spirerose Ltd HL 30-Jul-2009
Compulsory Purchase Compensation – Land As it Is
The House considered the basis of calculation of compensation on the compulsory purchase of land without planning permission, but where permission would probably be granted. The appellant challenged the decision which had treated the probability as . .
Cited – Star Energy Weald Basin Ltd and Another v Bocardo Sa SC 28-Jul-2010
The defendant had obtained a licence to extract oil from its land. In order to do so it had to drill out and deep under the Bocardo’s land. No damage at all was caused to B’s land at or near the surface. B claimed in trespass for damages. It now . .
Cited – Star Energy Weald Basin Ltd and Another v Bocardo Sa SC 28-Jul-2010
The defendant had obtained a licence to extract oil from its land. In order to do so it had to drill out and deep under the Bocardo’s land. No damage at all was caused to B’s land at or near the surface. B claimed in trespass for damages. It now . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Damages

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.196507

Countess of Ossalinsky v Manchester Corporation: 1883

Land bounding Thirlmere in the Lake District was acquired for use as a reservoir to supply water to Manchester. The prospect that the land, because of its particular characteristics, would be likely to be developed as a reservoir was a matter which might give the land an enhanced value. That should be taken into account. The particular purpose to which the Manchester Corporation was going to put the land should not be taken into account. But the fact of the acquisition of the land for this particular purpose might have evidential value showing that suggested alternative reservoir development schemes ‘are not visionary, but are schemes with a certain probability in them.’

Citations:

(1883) Browne and Allen 659

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Waters and others v Welsh Development Agency HL 29-Apr-2004
Land was to be compulsorily purchased. A large development required the land to be used to create a nature reserve. The question was how and if at all the value of the overall scheme should be considered when assessing the compensation for this . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Damages

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.196508

Lambe v Secretary of State for War: CA 1955

The acquiring authority was a sitting tenant and the compulsory purchase order related to the freehold reversion.
Held: Rule 3 was inapplicable. The marriage value which a reversion has for a sitting tenant does not clothe the land with a special suitability within that rule. The court decided that the correct measure of value was the price the acquiring authority, in the course of Lord Romer’s friendly negotiation, would have been willing to pay for the reversion if it had no compulsory powers. This included the marriage value.

Citations:

[1955] 2 QB 612

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Raja Vyricherla Narayana Gajapathiraju v Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizagapatam PC 23-Feb-1939
Land adjoining a harbour at Vizagapatam which at that time was malarial was to be valued for compulsory purchase. The land contained a spring of clean water. The only potential purchaser of the special adaptability of the land as a water supply was . .

Cited by:

Doubted – Waters and others v Welsh Development Agency HL 29-Apr-2004
Land was to be compulsorily purchased. A large development required the land to be used to create a nature reserve. The question was how and if at all the value of the overall scheme should be considered when assessing the compensation for this . .
Cited – Batchelor v Kent County Council LT 1-Mar-1987
The tribunal was asked to determine compensation to be paid on the acquisition of two plots of land. The land-owner claimed andpound;9,000,000 and the council offered andpound;5,490. The land-owner claimed the value as ransom as necessary access to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Damages

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.196514

In re Gough and Aspatria, Silloth and District Joint Water Board: CA 1904

Judges:

Lord Alverstone CJ

Citations:

[1904] 1 KB 417

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Approved – In re Gough and Aspatria, Silloth and District Joint Water Board 1903
On assessment of value for a compulsory purchase of land for a reservoir, if the site had ‘peculiar natural advantages’ for the supply of water that could be taken into account, but ‘there is no value for which compensation ought to be given on this . .

Cited by:

Cited – Waters and others v Welsh Development Agency HL 29-Apr-2004
Land was to be compulsorily purchased. A large development required the land to be used to create a nature reserve. The question was how and if at all the value of the overall scheme should be considered when assessing the compensation for this . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.196510

In re Lucas and Chesterfield Gas and Water Board: CA 1909

Land suitable for construction of a reservoir was the subject of a compulsory purchase for that purpose. The circumstances made it very unlikely that anyone other than the Water Board would have wanted, or been able, to construct the reservoir and exploit the water collected in it. In these circumstances, and bearing in mind the ‘value to the owner’ principle, could the site’s suitability for use as a reservoir enhance its value to the owner for which the Water Board should pay?
Held: When assessing compensation on the compulsory purchase of land, the value to the owner, as distinct from the value to the purchaser, is ‘to be estimated as it stood before the grant of the compulsory powers’. This was an absolute rule. ‘The owner is only to receive compensation based upon the market value of his lands as they stood before the scheme was authorized by which they are put to public uses.’ Where the special adaptability of land gives the land a special value which exists only for a particular purchaser with compulsory powers, that value cannot be taken into consideration when fixing the price. It is otherwise where the special value exists also for other possible purchasers so as to create a real though limited market for that special value.
Fletcher Moulton LJ had a restrictive approach: ‘The scheme which authorises the new reservoir only entitles the owner of the land to receive as compensation the value of the land unenhanced by that scheme, and, unless its situation and peculiarities create a market for it as a reservoir site for which other possible bidders exist, I do not think that the single possible purchaser that has obtained parliamentary powers can be made to pay a price based on special suitability merely by reason of the fact that it was easy to foresee that the situation of the land would lead to compulsory powers being some day obtained to purchase it.’

Judges:

Fletcher Moulton LJ, Vaughan Williams LJ

Citations:

[1909] 1 KB 16

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Waters and others v Welsh Development Agency HL 29-Apr-2004
Land was to be compulsorily purchased. A large development required the land to be used to create a nature reserve. The question was how and if at all the value of the overall scheme should be considered when assessing the compensation for this . .
Disapproved in part – Raja Vyricherla Narayana Gajapathiraju v Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizagapatam PC 23-Feb-1939
Land adjoining a harbour at Vizagapatam which at that time was malarial was to be valued for compulsory purchase. The land contained a spring of clean water. The only potential purchaser of the special adaptability of the land as a water supply was . .
Adopted – Cedars Rapids Manufacturing and Power Co v Lacoste PC 1914
Land at the St Lawrence river was to be valued for a compulsory purchase.
Held: Value does not mean the value of ‘the realized undertaking as it exists in the hands of the undertaker’. It means the price which possible undertakers would give. . .
Applied – Fraser v City of Fraserville PC 1917
One ground on which the arbitrators’ valuation award on a compulsory purchase, was set aside was that, in valuing the falls of a river and adjacent land acquired for electricity generation purposes, the arbitrators had taken into account the . .
Cited – Earl Cadogan v Pitts and Wang; Similar HL 10-Dec-2008
The House considered the basis of valuation on an acquisition of the freehold reversion of a lease under the 1967 Act of the three elements, the rent, vacant possession after the lease, and the marriage or hope value of the two interests when . .
Cited – Transport for London (London Underground Ltd) v Spirerose Ltd HL 30-Jul-2009
Compulsory Purchase Compensation – Land As it Is
The House considered the basis of calculation of compensation on the compulsory purchase of land without planning permission, but where permission would probably be granted. The appellant challenged the decision which had treated the probability as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Damages

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.196511

Harvey v Walters: CCP 1873

The court was asked whether an easement survived a change in usage: ‘We are of the opinion that the question here . . is, whether there has been a substantial variance in the mode of or extent of user or enjoyment of the easement, so as to throw a greater burthen on the servient tenement . . there must be an additional or different servitude, and the change must be material either in the nature or in the quantum of the servitude imposed.’

Judges:

Grove J

Citations:

(1873) LR 8CP 162

Cited by:

Cited – McAdams Homes Ltd v Robinson and Another CA 27-Feb-2004
The defendant blocked the line of a sewer. The claimant alleged that it had an easement and sought the cost of building the alternative pipe. The question to be answered was ‘Where an easement is granted by implication on the sale of a property, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.194018

Harvey v Walton: 1873

(Court of Common Pleas) A right of eavesdropping was not lost when the dominant owner demolished the building on his land and replaced it with another, taller, building. ‘We are of opinion that the question here . . is whether there has been a substantial variance in the mode of or extent of user or enjoyment of the easement, so as to throw a greater burthen on the servient tenement . . [T]here must be an additional or different servitude and the change must be material either in the nature or in the quantum of the servitude imposed.’

Judges:

Grove J

Citations:

(1873) LR 8 CP 162

Cited by:

Cited – McAdams Homes Ltd v Robinson and Another CA 27-Feb-2004
The defendant blocked the line of a sewer. The claimant alleged that it had an easement and sought the cost of building the alternative pipe. The question to be answered was ‘Where an easement is granted by implication on the sale of a property, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.194013

Attorney-General v Antrobus: ChD 1905

The owner of Stonehenge had enclosed the monument by fencing for its protection. The Attorney-General wished to remove the fencing in order to keep the place open so that the public could visit it.
Held: The court rejected a suggestion that there existed public rights of access to the ancient site of Stonehenge, despite the historic user. There could be no public right of way to the monument acquired by mere user or by the fact that the public had been in the habit of visiting it: ‘Now the cases establish that a public path is prima facie a road that leads from one public place to another public place-or as Holmes LJ suggests in the Giant’s Causeway case there cannot prima facie be a right for the public to go to a place where the public have no right to be. But the existence of a terminus ad quem is not essential to the legal existence of a public road. -But in no case has mere user by the public without more been held sufficient’.
The public had no jus spatiandi or manendi–the right to stay or remain–within the circle.
Speaking of ‘the liberality with which landowners in this country have for years past allowed visitors free access to objects of interest on their property . . ‘, he said that: ‘It would indeed be unfortunate if the Courts were to presume novel and unheard of trusts or statutes from acts of kindly courtesy, and thus drive landowners to close their gates in order to preserve their property.’, and deplored the prospect that building public rights on the foundation of the liberality of landowners might lead them’to close their gates in order to preserve their property.’
Farwell J doubted the correctness of the proposition that dedication in the case of a rural cul-de-sac can be inferred from public use, although he conceded: ‘I venture to think that this expenditure of [public] money is the important consideration, and that in such a case the land-owner who has permitted the expenditure cannot be heard to say that a roadway on which he has allowed public money to be spent is his private road; but the mere transit of passengers to see a view or a house at the end will create no right, as Lord Cranworth says.’

Judges:

Farwell J

Citations:

[1905] 2 Ch 188

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Jones and Lloyd HL 4-Mar-1999
21 people protested peacefully on the verge of the A344, next to the perimeter fence at Stonehenge. Some carried banners saying ‘Never Again,’ ‘Stonehenge Campaign 10 years of Criminal Injustice’ and ‘Free Stonehenge.’ The officer in charge . .
Approved – In re Ellenborough Park CA 15-Nov-1955
Qualifying Characteristics ofr Easement
Parties claimed a public right to wander through the grounds of the park.
Held: No such right could have been granted or was properly claimed. Lord Evershed MR said: ‘There is no doubt, in our judgment, but that Attorney-General v. Antrobus . .
Cited – Peters v Sinclair 6-May-1913
Supreme Court of Canada – S. brought action against P. for trespass on a strip of land called ‘Ancroft Place’ which he claimed as his property and asked for damages and an injunction. ‘Ancroft Place’ was a cul-de-sac running east from Sherbourne . .
Cited – Brand and Another v Philip Lund (Consultants) Ltd ChD 18-Jul-1989
The plaintiffs objected to the transport of wood from the defendant’s neighbouring land by lorry along an accessway to the plaintiff’s land. They said the defendants had no right of vehicular access. The defendants asserted a public vehicular . .
Cited – Newhaven Port and Properties Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v East Sussex County Council and Another SC 25-Feb-2015
The court was asked: ‘whether East Sussex County Council . . was wrong in law to decide to register an area . . known as West Beach at Newhaven . . as a village green pursuant to the provisions of the Commons Act 2006. The points of principle raised . .
Cited – Kotegaonkar v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Another Admn 19-Jul-2012
The court was asked: ‘can a way which is not connected to another public highway, or to some other point to which the public have a right of access, itself be a public highway?’ A path had been registered over part of te claimant’s land, but with no . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.192196

In re Turnworth Down Dorset: 1978

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

Judges:

Oliver J

Citations:

[1978] 1 Ch 251

Statutes:

Commons Registration Act 1965 10

Cited by:

Cited – Oxfordshire County Council v Oxford City Council, Catherine Mary Robinson ChD 22-Jan-2004
Land had been registered in part as a common. The council appealed.
Held: The rights pre-existing the Act had not been lost. The presumption against retrospectively disapplying vested rights applied, and the application had properly been made. . .
Cited – Oxfordshire County Council v Oxford City Council and others HL 24-May-2006
Application had been made to register as a town or village green an area of land which was largely a boggy marsh. The local authority resisted the application wanting to use the land instead for housing. It then rejected advice it received from a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.192160

Batchelor v Kent County Council: CA 1989

The Council had compulsorily acquired land for highway improvement. It was within an area scheduled for residential development. Outline permission for development of neighbouring land had been granted but the development could not proceed until the road improvements, including the construction of a roundabout, had been carried out. The compulsorily acquired plot was the site of the roundabout. The Lands Tribunal assessed the compensation for the plot on the basis that it was the key to the residential development.
Held: The value of the plot had to be assessed by reference to its value prior to the acquisition and disregarding any increase in value attributable to the residential development. On the facts, however, there was no ground for holding that the tribunal had failed to have regard to the principle that any such increase in value had to be disregarded. Mann LJ considered also the section 5 rule (3) disregard and the meaning of the statutory words ‘special suitability’. The tribunal had found that ‘the most suitable access to the land to the south [ie. part of the land to be residentially developed] is that which has been formed on the order land [ie. the roundabout]’, but found also ‘it was unable to find that the order land would have been the only access to the land to the south’. Those findings were ‘decisive against a finding of special suitability’: ‘The order land may have been the most suitable land for access to the south but it was not specially suitable for that purpose. Most suitable does not correspond with specially suitable.’ and ‘If a premium value is ‘entirely due to the scheme underlying the acquisition’ then it must be disregarded. If it was pre-existent to the [scheme] it must in my judgment be regarded. To ignore the pre-existent value would be to expropriate it without compensation and would be to contravene the fundamental principle of equivalence.’
Mann LJ: ‘The [Point Gourde] principle enjoins the tribunal to ignore ‘an increase in value which is entirely due to the scheme underlying the acquisition’. The scheme underlying the acquisition was here stated by the tribunal to be ‘the construction of the roundabout and the associated roadworks’. The roundabout and associated works when they were completed removed the inhibition imposed by…the planning permission…the removal of the inhibition was a removal naturally to be desired by the landowners whose development was otherwise curtailed. The critical question as it seems to me, is whether the scheme underlying the acquisition as found, did enhance the value of the order land. The question is a question of fact. If there were found to be an enhancement, its dimension was a matter of valuation. It is to be observed, and critically so, that the tribunal must search for an increase in value ‘entirely due to the scheme.
The Pointe Gourde principle cannot diminish a pre-scheme value. Was there a particular value prior to the scheme underlying the acquisition? As it seems to me the tribunal found that there was.’

Judges:

Mann LJ

Citations:

[1992] 1 EGLR 217, (1990) 59 PandCR 357

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Stokes v Cambridge Corporation LT 1961
The tribunal considered case concerned 5.1 ha of land with an assumption of planning permission for industrial development under Planning legislation. There was only one possible access over adjoining land in different ownership.
Held: When . .
Cited – Pointe Gourde Quarrying and Transport Co Ltd v Sub-Intendant of Crown Lands PC 29-Jul-1947
Under a wartime agreement in 1941 the UK government agreed to lease to the US Government land in Trinidad on which the US could establish a naval base. To do this the Crown acquired the Pointe Gourde land for its limestone quarry which would be used . .

Cited by:

Cited – C F and M G Roberts v South Gloucestershire District Council LT 31-Dec-1994
LT COMPENSATION – Compulsory purchase of land for the construction of a road – value – assumed planning permission – value of minerals – planning permission for a commercial minerals operation not granted or to . .
Cited – Waters and others v Welsh Development Agency HL 29-Apr-2004
Land was to be compulsorily purchased. A large development required the land to be used to create a nature reserve. The question was how and if at all the value of the overall scheme should be considered when assessing the compensation for this . .
Cited – Llanelec Precision Engineering Co Ltd v Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council LT 3-Aug-2000
. .
Cited – Wards Construction (Medway) Ltd v Barclays Bank Plc and Another CA 1-Jul-1994
Land with an existing use value of andpound;3,000 had been valued by the Lands Tribunal for purchase at andpound;2.15m.
Held: The ransom value decision by the Lands Tribunal was not wrong in law and was upheld. It was necessary to value the . .
Cited – J A Pye (Oxford) Limited v Kingswood Borough Council CA 6-Apr-1998
The purchase of land which was to form the last part of a development was to be valued without taking account of the enhanced value which would be attributed to the much larger scheme of development. To ascertain what is to be ignored by the valuer . .
Cited – Star Energy Weald Basin Ltd and Another v Bocardo Sa SC 28-Jul-2010
The defendant had obtained a licence to extract oil from its land. In order to do so it had to drill out and deep under the Bocardo’s land. No damage at all was caused to B’s land at or near the surface. B claimed in trespass for damages. It now . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Damages

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.188856

Inland Revenue Commissioners v Clay: CA 1914

The court considered the market value of a private residence. The evidence was that its value to persons wishing to use it as a private residence was 750 pounds. However, the house adjoined a nurses’ home the trustees of which wanted to extend their premises and they purchased it for 1000 pounds. The trustees would have paid up to 1100 pounds. The appellant accepted that it was proper to take into account that one or more adjoining landowners are likely to offer more than the property would be worth to anyone else but that an adjoining owner would pay little more than what the property was worth to outside purchasers.
Held: The court is concerned with ‘the expectations of properly qualified persons who have taken pains to inform themselves of all particulars ascertainable about the property, and its capabilities, the demand for it, and the likely buyers.’

Judges:

Sir Herbert Cozens-Hardy MR

Citations:

[1914] 3 KB 466

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – C F and M G Roberts v South Gloucestershire District Council LT 31-Dec-1994
LT COMPENSATION – Compulsory purchase of land for the construction of a road – value – assumed planning permission – value of minerals – planning permission for a commercial minerals operation not granted or to . .
Cited – Waters and others v Welsh Development Agency HL 29-Apr-2004
Land was to be compulsorily purchased. A large development required the land to be used to create a nature reserve. The question was how and if at all the value of the overall scheme should be considered when assessing the compensation for this . .
Cited – Earl Cadogan v Pitts and Wang; Similar HL 10-Dec-2008
The House considered the basis of valuation on an acquisition of the freehold reversion of a lease under the 1967 Act of the three elements, the rent, vacant possession after the lease, and the marriage or hope value of the two interests when . .
Applied – F R Evans (Leeds) Ltd v English Electric Co Ltd 1977
On the rent review of a large factory of which the only potential occupier was the tenant in question, one should assume a hypothetical landlord and hypothetical willing tenant so that the rental levels were not affected by one or both parties being . .
Cited – Transport for London (London Underground Ltd) v Spirerose Ltd HL 30-Jul-2009
Compulsory Purchase Compensation – Land As it Is
The House considered the basis of calculation of compensation on the compulsory purchase of land without planning permission, but where permission would probably be granted. The appellant challenged the decision which had treated the probability as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.188857

Butler v Rice: 1910

The wife owned a Bristol property and a Cardiff property subject to a andpound;450 charge in favour of a bank with whom the title deeds had been deposited. The husband asked the plaintiff to lend him andpound;450 to pay off the mortgage. The plaintiff thought that the Bristol property belonged to the husband and did not know of the Cardiff property. He agreed to advance the money on having a legal mortgage for andpound;300 on the Bristol property and a guarantee of andpound;150 by the husband’s solicitor who was to hold the deeds for the plaintiff. The wife knew nothing of the transaction. The money was paid, the charge to the bank discharged and the deeds of the Bristol property held by the solicitor as stakeholder. The wife refused to execute a mortgage in favour of the plaintiff. He sued the wife and her husband and the solicitor for a declaration that he was entitled to a charge on the Bristol property [for] andpound;450 and interest.
Held: The court referred to ‘ . . the well-known equitable doctrine that if a stranger pays off a mortgage on an estate he presumably does not intend to discharge that mortgage, but to keep it alive for his own benefit.’ It must be presumed that the plaintiff wanted to keep the bank’s charge alive in his own favour, that the fact that the wife had not requested the plaintiff to make the payment and did not know of the transaction was immaterial, that the fact that he intended to take a different security did not affect the question, and that he was entitled to a charge on the Bristol property for andpound;450 and interest.’

Judges:

Warrington J

Citations:

[1910] Ch 277

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Ghana Commercial Bank v Chandiram PC 1960
The bank made an advance to the owner of property in Accra which was used to pay off his indebtedness to Barclays (DC and O) Ltd, secured by an equitable mortgage. The owner executed a legal mortgage in favour of the Ghana Bank, but this was . .
Cited – Castle Phillips Finance v Piddington CA 1995
The wife charged the matrimonial home to Lloyds to secure the husband’s indebtedness. The husband subsequently agreed with Barclays for the indebtedness to be refinanced. The husband and an accomplice forged her signature on a transfer of the . .
Cited – UCB Group Ltd v Hedworth CA 4-Dec-2003
The defendant challenged the claimant’s right to possession under a legal charge. She appealed a finding that she had not established the undue influence of her husband, a solicitor.
Held: A lender who received a voidable security was entitled . .
Cited – Bank of Cyprus UK Ltd v Menelaou SC 4-Nov-2015
The bank customers, now appellants, redeemed a mortgage over their property, and the property was transferred to family members, who in turn borrowed from the same lender. A bank employee simply changed the name on the mortgage. This was ineffective . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Equity

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.190509

Marquis of Bute v M’Kirdy and M’Millan Ltd: 1937

For 70 years the public on the Isle of Bute had used a track to pass from a public road to part of the foreshore for purposes of bathing and recreation. The Marquis of Bute, who owned the relevant land, contended that the use of the track by the public should be attributed to the tolerance of himself and his predecessors in title. He therefore sought interdict against a bus company who had been bringing large numbers of trippers to the point on the public road from which they could use the track to get to the beach.
Held: Rejecting the pursuer’s contention, the proper question was whether: ‘having regard to the sparseness or density of the population, the user over the prescriptive period was in degree and quality such as might have been expected if the road had been an undisputed right of way. If the public user is of that degree and quality, the proprietor, who fails for the prescriptive period to assert or to put on record his right to exclude the public, must be taken to have remained inactive, not from tolerance, but because the public right could not have been successfully disputed or because he acquiesced in it.’ The First Division of the Court of Session, having concluded that the bus company had proved the existence of a public right of way for pedestrians, pronounced decree of absolvitor in their favour.

Judges:

Lord President Normand

Citations:

1937 SC 93

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Land

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.187795

Malcolm’s Trustees v Malcolm: HL 1950

It may be necessary to choose between various documents in order to discover the deed by virtue of which a liferent which is in question was constituted.

Judges:

Lord MacDermott

Citations:

1950 SC (HL) 17

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Cited – Earl of Balfour v Keeper of the Registers of Scotland and Others HL 6-Nov-2002
The applicant sought a declaration that he was the owner of land by virtue of the 1848 Act, claiming that a series of grants of liferent were ineffective to restrict the title transferred.
Held: Miller’s Trustees was to be applied in to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.187508

Smith v Scott: ChD 1973

It is not open to the court to reshape the law relating to the rights and liabilities of landowners by applying the principle of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 and thus saying that a landowner owed a duty of care to his neighbour when selecting his tenants.
Where land is let by a landlord to a tenant the landlord is not liable for acts of nuisance permitted by his tenant unless he has specifically authorised them. Sir John Pennycuick VC said: ‘It is established beyond question that the person to be sued in nuisance is the occupier of the property from which the nuisance emanates. In general, a landlord is not liable for nuisance committed by his tenant, but to this rule there is, so far as now in point, one recognised exception, namely, that the landlord is liable if he has authorised his tenant to commit the nuisance . . This exception has in the reported cases been rigidly confined to circumstances in which the nuisance has either been expressly authorised or is certain to result from the purposes for which the property is let.’

Judges:

Sir John Pennycuick VC

Citations:

[1973] Ch 314, [1972] 3 All ER 645, [1972] 3 WLR 783

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Harris v James 1876
A landlord can be responsible for the acts of nuisance of his tenant if he has authorised the tenant to do the acts. . .
Cited – Rich v Basterfield 5-Feb-1846
A landlord can be liable in nuisance for the acts of his tenant where the very nature of the letting would lead to that nuisance: ‘If a landlord lets premises, not in themselves a nuisance, but which may or may not be used by the tenant so as to . .
Cited – Ayers v Hanson, Stanley and Prince 1912
. .
Cited – Donoghue (or M’Alister) v Stevenson HL 26-May-1932
Decomposed Snail in Ginger Beer Bottle – Liability
The appellant drank from a bottle of ginger beer manufactured by the defendant. She suffered injury when she found a half decomposed snail in the liquid. The glass was opaque and the snail could not be seen. The drink had been bought for her by a . .

Cited by:

Cited – Mowan v London Borough of Wandsworth and Another CA 21-Dec-2000
The claimant tenant sought damages from the landlord and neighbour and fellow tenant for nuisance caused by the neighbour’s aberrant behaviour.
Sir Christopher Staughton said: ‘there is a strong trend in the cases in favour of the landlord who . .
Approved – Elizabeth v Rochester City Council CA 26-Apr-1993
. .
Cited – Hussain and Another v Lancaster City Council CA 14-May-1998
It was suggested that a landlord, or at least a local authority landlord, who knows or ought to know of a nuisance being committed in the neighbourhood of the demised premises, but who fails to take such steps as are reasonable in all the . .
Cited – Southwark London Borough Council v Mills/Tanner; Baxter v Camden London Borough Council HL 21-Oct-1999
Tenants of council flats with ineffective sound insulation argued that the landlord council was in breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment in their tenancy agreements.
Held: A landlord’s duty to allow quiet enjoyment does not extend to a . .
Applied – Hussain v Lancaster City Council CA 1999
The court considerd the liability of a landlord for the acts of racial aggravation of his tenant causing damage to his neighbour. The plaintiffs were shopowners and they claimed to have suffered severe harassment from tenants which included threats, . .
Cited – Coventry and Others v Lawrence and Another (No 2) SC 23-Jul-2014
Consequential judgment. Mr Coventry had been found liable in the principle judgment in nuisance to the appellant neighbours. The Court was now asked as to several matters arising. First, to what extent were the defendants’ landlords liable to the . .
Cited – Coventry and Others v Lawrence and Another (No 2) SC 23-Jul-2014
Consequential judgment. Mr Coventry had been found liable in the principle judgment in nuisance to the appellant neighbours. The Court was now asked as to several matters arising. First, to what extent were the defendants’ landlords liable to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Nuisance

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.186069

The Calgarth: CA 1927

A ship foundered while using a navigable channel other than in the ordinary way of navigation. Scrutton LJ said: ‘When you invite a person into your house to use the staircase, you do not invite him to slide down the bannisters, you invite him to use the staircase in the ordinary way in which it is used.’

Judges:

Scrutton LJ

Citations:

[1927] P 93

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Hillen and Pettigrew v ICI (Alkali) Ltd HL 1936
Stevedores who were lawfully on a barge for the purpose of discharging it, nevertheless became trespassers when they went onto an inadequately supported hatch cover in order to unload some of the cargo. They knew that they ought not to use the . .
Cited – Harvey v Plymouth City Council CA 29-Jul-2010
The Council appealed against a finding of liability under the 1957 Act after the claimant was injured after jumping over a fence to flee hving to pay a taxi, and falling down a steep slope onto a car park. The land had been licenced to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Land

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.185817

Standard Chartered Bank Ltd v Walker: CA 1982

The mortgagee having obtained insufficient on the sale at auction of the property charged to recover the sum secured, applied for summary judgment against the mortgagor for that sum. The mortgagor resisted the application alleging that the mortgagee had sold at an undervalue on a variety of grounds one of which was that the sale took place at the wrong time of year.
Held: the mortgagor should have leave to defend on the ground that there was an arguable case that the sale had been negligently handled. A mortgagee can choose his own time for sale. A lender recovering funds on sale of the mortgaged property must use the proceeds to reduce the debt. ‘If it should appear that the mortgagee or the receiver have not used reasonable care to realise the assets to the best advantage, then the mortgagor, the company, and the guarantor are entitled in equity to an allowance. They should be given credit for the amount which the sale should have realised if reasonable care had been used. Their indebtedness is to be reduced accordingly.’ The mortgagee’s duty is ‘to take reasonable care to obtain the best price that the circumstances permit’.

Judges:

Lord Denning MR

Citations:

[1982] 1 WLR 1410, [1982] 3 All ER 938

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Platts v Trustees Savings Bank Plc CA 13-Feb-1998
A counterclaim for negligent sale was a valid claim allowing potential against repossessing bank but would not make bank’s claim unliquidated. The Judge could properly hold that there was a liquidated and unsecured debt the subject of the statutory . .
Cited – Re Charnley Davies Ltd (No 2) ChD 1990
An administrator owed a duty to the company over which he was appointed to take reasonable care to obtain the best price that the circumstances, as he reasonably perceived them to be, permitted, including a duty to take reasonable care in choosing . .
Cited – Silven Properties Limited, Chart Enterprises Incorporated v Royal Bank of Scotland Plc, Vooght, Harris CA 21-Oct-2003
The claimants sought damages from mortgagees who had sold their charged properties as receivers. They said they had failed to sell at a proper value. They asked whether the express appointment in the mortgage of receivers as agents of the mortgagor . .
Cited – Silven Properties Ltd and Another v Royal Bank of Scotland Plc and Others CA 21-Oct-2003
The claimants complained that the receivers appointed by the bank had failed to get the best price for properties charged to the bank and sold, in that they had failed to obtain planning permissions which would have increased the values of the . .
Cited – Silven Properties Ltd and Another v Royal Bank of Scotland Plc and Others CA 21-Oct-2003
The claimants complained that the receivers appointed by the bank had failed to get the best price for properties charged to the bank and sold, in that they had failed to obtain planning permissions which would have increased the values of the . .
Cited – Silven Properties Ltd and Another v Royal Bank of Scotland Plc and Others CA 21-Oct-2003
The claimants complained that the receivers appointed by the bank had failed to get the best price for properties charged to the bank and sold, in that they had failed to obtain planning permissions which would have increased the values of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Banking

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.184792

Attorney General of Hong Kong v Humphreys Estate (Queen’s Gardens) Ltd: PC 1987

An agreement in principle was marked ‘subject to contract’. The Government would acquire some flats owned the plaintiff Group of companies in return for the Government granting, inter alia, a lease to the Group of some Crown lands. The Government was allowed to and did take possession of the flats and spent money upon them and moved some civil servants into them, the Crown accordingly disposing of the premises where those civil servants had previously resided. On the other side of the bargain, the Government allowed the Group to enter the Crown land and to demolish buildings upon it. However, the requisite forms of documents were never executed
Held: Lord Templeman said: ‘The government acted in the hope that a voluntary agreement in principle expressly made ‘subject to contract’ and therefore not binding, would eventually be followed by the achievement of legal relationships in the form of grants and transfers of property. It is possible but unlikely that in circumstances at present unforeseeable a party to negotiations set out in a document expressed to be ‘subject to contract’ would be able to satisfy the court that the parties had subsequently agreed to convert the document into a contract or that some form of estoppel had arisen to prevent both parties from refusing to proceed with the transactions envisaged by the document.’

Judges:

Lord Templeman

Citations:

[1987] 1 AC 114

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Approved – Salvation Army Trustee Co Ltd v West Yorkshire Metropolitan County Council 1980
Threatened with a road widening, the plaintiffs left their old property, and began to develop their new one, again, on land owned by the respondent. In practice it was negotiated as an exchange of properties. The negotiations were held ‘without . .

Cited by:

Cited – Confetti Records (A Firm), Fundamental Records, Andrew Alcee v Warner Music UK Ltd (Trading As East West Records) ChD 23-May-2003
An agreement was made for the assignment of the copyright in a music track, but it remained ‘subject to contract’. The assignor later sought to resile from the assignment.
Held: It is standard practice in the music licensing business for a . .
Cited – Gonthier and Another v Orange Contract Scaffolding Ltd CA 25-Jun-2003
The question of a proprietary estoppel as between landlord and tenant arose. An agreement had been reached subject to contract for the grant of a lease, with an option to purchase. The tenant was allowed into possession before the documentation was . .
Cited – Evans v James (Administratrix of the Estate of Thomas Hopkin Deceased) CA 5-Jul-1999
Before the parties called evidence, and having read the papers, the court considered that there was no real defence shown, and invited submissions. Negotiations for the grant of a tenancy had been terminated by the sudden illness of the proposed . .
Cited – Cobbe v Yeomans Row Management Ltd and Others ChD 25-Feb-2005
Principles for Proprietary Estoppel
A developer claimed to have agreed that upon obtaining necessary planning permissions for land belonging to the respondents, he would purchase the land at a price reflecting its new value. The defendant denied that any legally enforceable agreement . .
Cited – London and Regional Investments Ltd v TBI Plc and Others CA 22-Mar-2002
TBI was a property investor and developer with several subsidiaries. It agreed to sell some to London and Regional. The agreement provided for the vendor and the purchaser to use reasonable endeavours to agree the terms of a joint venture agreement . .
Cited – Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd and Another v Cobbe HL 30-Jul-2008
The parties agreed in principle for the sale of land with potential development value. Considerable sums were spent, and permission achieved, but the owner then sought to renegotiate the deal.
Held: The appeal succeeded in part. The finding . .
Explained – JT Developments v Quinn and Another CA 1990
The plaintiff told the defendant it was willing to grant a lease on the same terms as those contained in a new tenancy that the plaintiff had recently granted to the tenant of a nearby shop, also owned by the plaintiff. The defendant carried out . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Commonwealth, Estoppel

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.183739

Pritchard v Briggs: CA 1980

A conveyance of part in 1944 gave a right of pre-emption over retained land. The vendor’s successors the let the retained land to the plaintiff with an option to buy the freehold reversion. The retained land was sold to the defendants in purported compliance with the right of pre-emption. A year later the plaintiff purported to exercise his option and claimed to be entitled to the retained land in priority to the defendants. Walton J dismissed the claim.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The grant of the right of pre-emption did not confer an interest in land and the grant of the option did not trigger the right of pre-emption. The grantee of the right of pre-emption had a right to call for a conveyance of the land if the conditions on which the right is exercisable are fulfilled. Section 186 appeared to have been drafted under a misconception of the law.
Goff LJ said: A party does not avoid liability simply because through ignorance of the law he does not realise that his conduct is tortious. Goff LJ drew no distinction between the criminal and the civil law, and applied the criminal test in the civil context. Stephenson LJ expressly agreed with the judgment of Goff LJ.
Templeman LJ said: ‘Thus the relationship of vendor and purchaser could not be established unless the [vendors] chose to offer the retained lands to the holder of the right of pre-emption or, in breach of covenant, contracted to sell the retained lands to a third party without first offering the lands to the option-holder… If and when these conditions were fulfilled, the holder of the right of pre-emption would be entitled to buy and therefore entitled to an equitable interest.’ Stephenson LJ: ‘…what is granted is a right of pre-emption, [and] the true construction of the grant is only properly called an option when the will of the grantor turns it into an option by deciding to sell and thereby binding the grantor to offer it for sale to the grantee. That it thereby becomes an interest in land is a change in the nature of the right…to which I see no insuperable objection in logic or in principle.’

Judges:

Goff LJ, Templeman LJ, Stephenson LJ

Citations:

[1980] CLY 1563, [1980] Ch 338

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 186

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Kirkness v John Hudson and Co Ltd HL 1955
Viscount Simonds said: ‘the beliefs or assumptions of those who frame Acts of Parliament cannot make the law’. While subsequent legislation could resolve ambiguity in earlier legislation, it could only do so where the subject of the subsequent . .

Cited by:

Cited – London and Blenheim Estates v Ladbroke Retail Parks Ltd CA 1-Jun-1993
The land-owner sold part of his land, granting easements over the retained land, and an agreement that, if further plots were purchased, similar easements would be granted. The agreement stated that the purchaser should have the right to give notice . .
Distinguished – Merer v Fisher and Another CA 13-May-2003
A right of pre-emption had misdescribed the property when it was registered. The land was transferred without regard to the right of pre-emption. It was found as a fact that no money passed for the transfer, and the claimants said the unregistered . .
Cited – Bettison and others v Langton and others HL 17-May-2001
A right to pasture animals on a common had been levant and couchant, and as such was inalienable as a separate asset from the land where the animals were kept. The right was registered under the Act, and was thereby transformed into a right to graze . .
Cited – Tiffany Investments Ltd and Another v Bircham and Co Nominees (No 2) Limited and others CA 4-Dec-2003
The tenancy was a long lease at a low rent under the 1954 Act, and so had continuing protection under the 1977 Act whilst occupied by the original tenant. The lease was assigned and registered. It had been conditional upon an application to purchase . .
Cited – Bircham and Co, Nominees; Limited and Another v Worrell Holdings Ltd CA 22-May-2001
Whether an agreement is enforceable for the sale of the remainder of the term of a lease following the exercise (or purported exercise) of rights of pre-emption . .
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 ownership of both the servient and dominant land in respect of a restrictive covenant. The Borough contended that the restrictive . .
Cited – Mainstream Properties Ltd v Young and others CA 13-Jul-2005
The claimant appealed refusal of his claim for inducing a breach of contract against the sixth defendant. It said that an intention to disturb a contract could be inferred.
Held: A mere recklessness as to whether contractual rights were . .
Cited – Taylor v Couch ChD 1-Mar-2012
The case raised the question of law involving the application of the rule against perpetuities to what, on the claimant’s case, is a right of pre-emption created before the coming into force in 2010 of the Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 2009.’ . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Contract

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.183367

Church of Scotland Endowment Committee v Provident Association of London Ltd: 1914

Citations:

[1914] SC 165, 1913 2 SLT 412

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Cited – Clydesdale Bank plc v Davidson and Others (Scotland) Clydesdale Bank plc v Davidson and Others HL 16-Oct-1997
(Scotland) Joint pro indiviso proprietors of land were not able at law to create a binding lease in favour of one of their number, so as to defeat the proper claims of a third party. A person cannot enter into a contract with himself.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.182828

Bradford v Mayor of Eastbourne: 1896

Lord Russell CJ said of section 13: ‘the vesting . . is not a giving of the property in the sewer and in the soil . . but giving such ownership and such rights only as are necessary for the purpose of carrying out the duties of a local authority’

Judges:

Lord Russell CJ

Citations:

[1896] 2 QB 205

Statutes:

Public Health Act 1875 13

Cited by:

Cited – The Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd and Another v United Utilities Water Plc SC 2-Jul-2014
The court was asked: ‘whether a sewerage undertaker under the Water Industry Act 1991 has a statutory right to discharge surface water and treated effluent into private watercourses such as the Respondents’ canals without the consent of their . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Local Government, Utilities

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.551307

Ching Garage Ltd v Chingford Corporation: HL 1961

Lord Radcliffe said: ‘I think, however, that it needs to be remembered in connection with this statement that the full extent of the common law right to enter the highway at every point of the frontage for any highway purpose must have been modified in very many cases by the exercise of statutory powers with regard to the highway and that, apart from local Acts, section 155 (5) of the Highways Act, 1959, is now the controlling enactment.
It is plain, therefore, that, certainly in any built-up area, there are numerous rights of access to the streets from adjoining premises, and that they are rights derived from common law or statute, general or local, or, perhaps, from a combination of the two sources. In my opinion, it is well-settled law that a highway authority exercising statutory powers to improve or maintain a street or highway, such as to raise or lower its level, to form a footpath, to pave or kerb or to erect omnibus shelters, is empowered to carry out its works even though by so doing it interferes with or obstructs frontagers’ rights of access to the highway.’
When a highway authority intereferes with such rights, the right to compensation is a matter of law not concession: ‘If they can do what they want to without having to pay compensation, they have no business to use public funds in paying over money to an objector who is not entitled to it; and if they have to pay compensation, they must pay according to the proper legal measure . .’

Judges:

Lord Radcliffe

Citations:

[1961] 1 WLR 470

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Cusack v London Borough of Harrow SC 19-Jun-2013
The landowner practised from property in Harrow. The former garden had now for many years been used as a forecourt open to the highway, for parking cars of staff and clients. Cars crossed the footpath to gain access, and backing out into the road . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.535125

Stewart v Crofter’s Commission: SLC 10 Apr 2013

SLC Crofting – appeal from crofters commission against decision to consent to assignation of croft tenancy – natural justice – failure of commission to correctly apply sec 58a of Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993 – failure to treat objections correctly and to give objector an opportunity of commenting upon proposed assignee’s comments on objections – circumstances in which court upheld appeal under sec 52a(3)(c) of the Act

Judges:

Sheriff R J MacLeod, Mr A Macdonald

Citations:

RN SLC/40/11

Links:

SL

Statutes:

Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993 58a 52a

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Land

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.513534

Salvesen v Riddell: SLC 29 Jul 2010

SLC Agricultural holdings – limited partnership tenancy – limited partner being agent of landlord – notice of dissolution of partnership validly given – notice given on 3 Feb 2003 – expected change of legislation on 4 Feb 2003 – retrospective change – notice ‘otherwise than for purpose’ of depriving of right – ‘deriving from this section’ – trigger or purpose – circular argument that purpose of notice could have been to defeat a right given by the notice – wide or strict construction – general partner – general partner’s right to continue in occupation – narrow construction appropriate if possible to avoid adverse retrospective effects – mischief of section – informed interpretation – result not contemplated by parliament – Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) act 2003 secs 72 and 73

Judges:

Lord McGhie, Mr J A Smith

Citations:

RN SLC 3/09

Links:

SLC

Statutes:

Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) act 2003 72 73

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

At Scottish Land Court – Salvesen v Riddell and Another SCS 15-Mar-2012
Second Division – The court allowed an appeal under section 88(1) of the 2003 Act from a decision of the Scottish Land Court. The section was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court proceeded on the basis that section 72 . .
At Scottish Land Court – Salvesen v Riddell and Another; The Lord Advocate intervening (Scotland) SC 24-Apr-2013
The appellant owned farmland tenanted by a limited partnership. One partner gave notice and the remaining partners indicated a claim for a new tenancy. He was prevented from recovering possession by section 72 of the 2003 Act. Though his claim had . .
At Land Court – Salvesen v Riddell and Another SCS 6-Jan-2015
The appellant enrolled a motion requesting payment by the Land court of the costs occasioned in a long running legal dispute. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.512422

Brewster v Strathmore Estates (Holding) Limited: SLC 30 May 2007

SLC Agricultural holdings – whether lease dated october 1949 but with stated duration of 14 years from Martinmas 1946 entered into ‘on or after November 1 1948’ for purposes of section 5 of Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991 – whether statutory provisions or common law applied to maintenance of fixed equipment – retention of rent – whether tenant required to intimate the correct legal ground on which rent being retained – whether a tenant entitled to rely on retention of rent and claim damages for the same breaches obligations

Judges:

Sheriff MacLeod, D J Houston

Citations:

SLC/228/05

Links:

SLC

Statutes:

Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991 5

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Land, Scotland

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.513536

Milliken v McNulty: SLC 5 Jun 2007

SLC Agricultural holdings – notice to quit – circumstances in which court refused motion for discharge of debate – procedure adopted on withdrawal of agent – competency of challenging validity of notice under section 22(2)(d) of Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991 after service of notice to quit relying on said section

Judges:

Sheriff MacLeod, D J Houston

Citations:

SLC/44/06

Links:

SLC

Statutes:

Agricultural Holdings (Scot1and) Act 1991 22(2)(d)

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.513537

The Isle of Gigha Heritage Trust v Heard: SLC 11 May 2007

SLC Argicultural holdings – limited partnership tenancy – general partner giving notice of intention to become tenant – notice given before termination – whether given within 28 days – Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 2003, section 72 – the Agricultural Holdings (Relevant date and relevant period) (Scotland) Order 2003

Judges:

Lord McGhie, J A Smith

Citations:

SLC/176/06

Links:

SLC

Statutes:

The Agricultural Holdings (Relevant date and relevant period) (Scotland) Order 2003, Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003 72

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Land

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.513535

Rex v Stafford Justices, ex parte Stafford Corp: CA 1940

Houses had been built across the site of a footpath which had not been properly diverted. An order to demolish the houses was refused because of the delay and prejudice.
Held: Lord Green MR said of the exercise of discretion involved: ‘Now, in my opinion, the order for the issue of the writ of certiorari is, except in cases where it goes as of course, strictly in all cases a matter of discretion. It is perfectly true to say that if no special circumstances exist, then a person aggrieved by that is entitled ex debito justitiae to his order. That merely means this, in my judgment, that the Court in such circumstances will exercise its discretion by granting the relief. In all discretionary remedies it is well known and settled that in certain circumstances – I will not say in all of them, but in a great many of them- the Court, although nominally it has a discretion, it is to act according to the ordinary principles upon which judicial discretion is exercised, must exercise that discretion in a particular way, and if a Judge at a trial refuses to do so, then the Court of Appeal will set the mater right. But when once it is established that in deciding whether or not a particular remedy shall be granted the Court is entitled to inquire into the conduct of the applicant, and the circumstances of the case, in order to ascertain whether it is proper or not proper to grant the remedy sought, the case must in my judgment be one of discretion.’
Before such a discretion can be exercised ‘there must be something in the circumstances of the case which make it right to refuse the relief sought’

Judges:

Lord Greene MR

Citations:

[1940] 2 KB 33, (1940) 109 LJKB 584

Land, Administrative

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.472247

Cathcart v Cathcart: 1902

The Court refused to grant a declarator that the pursuer was entitled to a liferent of land situated in England. Lord Low said: ‘Real estate in England is beyond the jurisdiction of the Scotch courts . . Further, if decree of declarator in terms of the second conclusion was pronounced, this court would have no power to give practical effect to the right thereby declared. The pursuer would require to go to England to obtain his remedy. Would the English courts, according to the principles of international law, be bound to recognise and act upon the declarator of this court? I am of opinion that they would not . . I think that the answer would be that it was for the court of the country where the real estate was situated to say what was the result, as regards the rights of the parties [of the relevant events]. I am therefore of opinion that the question . . is one with which this court is not competent to deal.’

Judges:

Lord Low

Citations:

(1902) 12 SLT 182

Scotland, Jurisdiction, Land

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.463719

in Re White Rose Cottage: ChD 1964

The court held that under a mortgage by deposit under seal, a true equitable mortgage – that the expression ‘the mortgaged property’ in section 101 meant the property over which the mortgage deed purported to extend and was not limited to an equitable interest in that property.

Judges:

Wilberforce J

Citations:

[1964] Ch 483

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 101

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Swift 1st Ltd v Colin and Others ChD 27-Jul-2011
The parties disputed the effects of charges over a property. A charge had not been registered, but merely noted on the registers. The defendants had purchased it from another chargee acting under a power of sale. The defendants had applied to be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.444945

Ridgeland Properties Ltd v Bristol City Council: CA 27 May 2011

Appeal against a decision of the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), determining the compensation payable for the compulsory acquisition of the Appellant’s property in the sum of andpound;4.5m. The ground of appeal was that the Tribunal wrongly refused the Appellant’s application, made following the publication of the Tribunal’s draft decision to re-open the hearing to permit further evidence to be given of three letters making offers of between andpound;15.3m and andpound;23m for Tollgate House.

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 649

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land, Damages

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.440223

Dalton v Henry Angus and Co: 1877

Fry J said: ‘ . .I cannot imagine any case of acquiescence in which there is not shown to be in the servient owner: 1, a knowledge of the acts done; 2, a power in him to stop the acts or to sue in respect of them; and 3, an abstinence on his part from the exercise of such power. That such is the nature of acquiescence and that such is the ground upon which presumptions or inferences of grant or covenant may be made appears to me to be plain . .’

Judges:

Fry J

Citations:

(1877) 3 QBD 85

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Dalton v Henry Angus and Co CA 1878
. .
At first instance – Dalton v Henry Angus and Co HL 14-Jun-1881
The court explained the doctrine of lost modern grant. Where there has been more than 20 years’ uninterrupted enjoyment of an easement, and that enjoyment has the necessary qualities to fulfil the requirements of prescription, then unless, for some . .
Cited – Tehidy Minerals Ltd v Norman CA 1971
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 . .
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

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.430350

Heron Garage Properties Ltd v Moss: 1974

A contract for the sale of land was conditional on obtaining planning permission. It was not granted. The purchaser sought to enforce the contract.
Held: He failed. Brightman J said: ‘Without seeking to define the precise limits within which a contracting party seeking specific performance may waive a condition on the ground that it is intended only for his benefit, it seems to me that in general the proposition only applies where the stipulation is in terms for the exclusive benefit of the plaintiff because it is a power or right vested by the contract in him alone . . or where the stipulation is by inevitable implication for the benefit of him alone . . If it is not obvious on the face of the contract that the stipulation is for the exclusive benefit of the party seeking to eliminate it, then in my opinion it cannot be struck out unilaterally. I do not think that the court should conduct an enquiry outside the terms of the contract to ascertain where in all the circumstances the benefit lies if the parties have not concluded the matter on the face of the agreement they have signed.’

Judges:

Brightman J

Citations:

[1974] 1 All ER 421, [1974] 1 WLR 148

Citing:

Cited – Hawksley v Outram CA 1892
The parties had concluded a contract for the sale of land and a business. The court considered a purported waiver of a non-compete clause, saying: ‘if there is any doubt whether [the provisions of the contract in issue] are binding upon the vendors, . .

Cited by:

Cited – Irwin v Wilson and Others ChD 23-Feb-2011
The claimant sought a declaration that his contract for the sale of leasehold property to the defendants had been lawfully terminated by a letter from his solicitors. The defendants had moved in before completion, but the claimant found himself . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.430310

Law v Jones: 1974

A ‘subject to contract’ document might be evidence of an antecedent or oral contract and satisfy section 40 of the Law of Property Act 1925 if the stipulation was later waived. A memorandum or note must, if it is to be effective, not only state the terms of the contract but also contain an acknowledgement or recognition by the signatory to the document that a contract had been entered into. The defendants lost because the alleged memorandum was expressly ‘subject to contract’ and therefore did not satisfy section 40 because it did not recognise or admit the existence of a contract.

Citations:

[1974] Ch 112

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 40

Cited by:

Incorrect – Tiverton Estates Ltd v Wearwell Ltd CA 1975
“Subject to Contract” not to be diluted
‘subject to contract’ proposals remain in negotiation until a formal contract is executed. Lord Denning MR said: ‘for over a hundred years, the courts have held that the effect of the words ‘subject to contract’ is that the matter remains in . .
Mentioned as incorrect – Golden Ocean Group Ltd v Salgaocar Mining Industries Pvt Ltd and Another ComC 21-Jan-2011
The defendants sought to set aside orders allowing the claimants to serve proceedings alleging repudiation of a charterparty in turn allowing a claim against the defendants under a guarantee. The defendant said the guarantee was unenforceable under . .
Has been overruled – Golden Ocean Group Ltd v Salgaocar Mining Industries Pvt Ltd and Another CA 9-Mar-2012
The court was asked ‘whether a contract of guarantee is enforceable where contained not in a single document signed by the guarantor but in a series of documents duly authenticated by the signature of the guarantor. It is common in commercial . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Land

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.430063

Spittle v Davis: 1650

In a replevin, the case was; One Turk seised of lands in fee, devised parcell thereof to his eldest son in taile, arid the other parcell to his youngest son in fee. Provided, and his intent was, that if any of his sons or any of their issues, do alien or demise any of the said Iands, before any of them comes to the age of thirty years, that then the other shall have the estate, and does not limit what estate, and then one of the sons makes a Iease for years before such age, whereupon the other enters,
and before he comes to the age of thirty years, he aiiens that part into which he made entry, and the other brother beirig the eldest enters and makes a lease to Spittle the plainiff for three years, and Davies by commandment of the younger brother enters, and takes a horse damage-feasant, and Spittle brought a replevini : and upon demur, it seemed to the Court, that this was a limitation, and by vertue of the will the estate devised to them untill they aliened, and upon the alienation to go to the other; and upon such alienation the land is clischarged of all limiitations, for otherwise the land upon one alienation shall go to one, and upon another alienation should go back again, arid so to and fro ad infinitum, vide Dyer 14. and 29. And afterwards all the Judges agreed, that after one brother had entred into the land by reason of the alienation that land was discharged forever of the limitation by the will ; and judgment was given accordingly.

Citations:

[1650] EngR 15, (1650) Owen 55, (1650) 74 ER 895

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other, Land

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.416835

Trocette Property Co Ltd v Greater London Council: CA 1974

Lawton LJ considered the scheme of compensation under the 1961 Act and said: ‘The assessment of compensation in cases such as this is a most difficult task calling for the judicial use of fertile imagination. Assumptions have to be made (see ss 14, 15 and 16) and some realities disregarded (eg any increase in value which is entirely due to the scheme underlying the acquisition – the so called Pointe Gourde principle). It is important that this statutory world of make-believe should be kept as near as possible to reality’.
Peter Gibson LJ said: ‘ In particular I would emphasise the necessity to adhere to reality subject only to giving full effect to the statutory hypothesis, so that the hypothetical lessor and lessee act as a prudent lessor and lessee. I would call this the principle of reality, which is, to my mind, of fundamental importance in this case.’
Schiemann LJ said: ‘The statutory hypothesis is only a mechanism for enabling one to arrive at a value for a particular hereditament for rating purposes. It does not entitle the valuer to depart from the real world further than the hypothesis compels.’

Judges:

Lawton LJ, Peter Gibson LJ, Schiemann LJ

Citations:

[1974 RVR 306, (1972) 28 PandC R 408

Statutes:

Land Compensation Act 1961

Cited by:

Cited – Roberts and Another v South Gloucestershire Council CA 7-Nov-2002
The landowner appealed against the compensation awarded for the compulsory acquisition of his land for use as a road. The owners had been compensated only for its agricultural value, but said that it should have allowed for its value for minerals . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.421580

In Re Pittortou (a bankrupt): ChD 1985

H and W charged the property to secure the H’s overdrawn bank account. The account was used both for his business and for payment of expenses relating to the matrimonial home. H was adjudicated bankrupt. W sought her equity to be exonerated from H’s debt.
Held: Scott J said that where payments had been made for the joint benefit of the household, they must be paid from the net proceeds before division. However an equity of exoneration applied to payments made purely for business purposes and for H’s sole benefit, and these were to be deducted only from H’s share.
Exoneration depended on the presumed intention of the parties. To apply, it would be necessary to demonstrate that (a) the spouse joined in a charge over jointly owned property; (b) the spouse did so for the purposes of the bankrupt; and (c) the money must have been borrowed and used for the bankrupt’s sole benefit.
The joint owner who is effectively in the position of a surety for the other joint owner is not only entitled to be indemnified by the other joint owner in relation to the relevant debt but the right to an indemnity carries with it a proprietary right over the indemnifying party’s share in the property. Thus, the party with the benefit of an equity of exoneration has not only a personal claim but is also a secured creditor in relation to that claim.
The court set out a definition of an equity of exoneration: ‘if the property of a married woman is mortgaged or charged in order to raise money for the payment of her husband’s debts, or otherwise for his benefit, it is presumed, in the absence of showing an intention to the contrary, that she meant to charge her property merely by way of security, and in such case, she is in the position of a surety, and is entitled to be indemnified by the husband, and to throw the debt primarily on his estate to the exoneration of her own.’
‘It is, I think, clear that the effect of the equity of exoneration in a case such as this is indeed to enhance the proprietary interest of the surety/joint mortgagor and not simply to give the surety a personal right to an indemnity from the debtor who is the other joint mortgagor.’

Judges:

Scott J

Citations:

[1985] All ER 285

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Re Cronmire, ex parte Cronmire CA 1901
At the husband’s request his wife deposited with his bankers the title deeds of her property as security for advances to be made to him. Before he became bankrupt the debt was paid off by her.
Held: The court acknowledged the entitlement of a . .
Cited – Hall v Hall ChD 1911
An equity of exoneration in favour of a wife arises ‘at the time she charges her estate’. The doctrine of exoneration is based on an inference in each case from all the facts of that particular case. Where one co-habitee joins in granting a charge . .
Cited – Re a debtor (No 24 of 1971), ex parte Marley (J) v Trustee of the property of the debtor ChD 1976
The court will look to the realities of the relationship between the mortgagors and will not be governed by the terms of the mortgage instrument if they do not accord with the actual facts.
Held: the court accepted that an equity of . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Re Woodstock (a bankrupt) ChD 19-Nov-1979
Walton J drew attention in his judgment to the need for the courts, in considering how the equity of exoneration should work as between a husband and a wife, to take into account the relationship which husbands and wives bear, or ought to bear, to . .

Cited by:

Cited – Day v Shaw and Another ChD 17-Jan-2014
Mr and Mrs Shaw had granted a second charge over their jointly-owned matrimonial home to secure the personal guarantee given by their daughter and by Mr Shaw in respect of a bank loan to a company (Avon). Their daughter and Mr Shaw were the . .
Cited – Armstrong v Onyearu and Another CA 11-Apr-2017
Exoneration of partner’s equity on insolvency
The court considered the equity of exoneration, where property jointly owned by A and B is charged to secure the debts of B only, A is or may be entitled to a charge over B’s share of the property to the extent that B’s debts are paid out of A’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Equity, Land, Insolvency

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.420747

Howard v Miller: 1915

The trusteeship which arises as between a vendor and purchaser of land depends on the availability of specific performance. Lord Parker of Waddington said: ‘It is sometimes said that under a contract for the sale of an interest in land the vendor becomes a trustee for the purchaser of the interest contracted to be sold . . but however useful such a statement may be as illustrating a general principle of equity, it is only true if and so far as a Court of Equity would under all the circumstances of the case grant specific performance of the contract.’

Judges:

Lord Parker of Waddington

Citations:

[1915] AC 318

Cited by:

Cited – Clarence House Ltd v National Westminster Bank Plc CA 8-Dec-2009
The defendant tenants, anticipating that the landlord might delay or refuse consent to a subletting entered into a ‘virtual assignment’ of the lease, an assignment in everything but the deed and with no registration. The lease contained a standard . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.392515

Hertfordshire County Council v Bolden: 9 Dec 1986

A court may allow a de minimis incursion over a public right of way.

Citations:

Times 09-Dec-1986

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Herrick and Another v Kidner and Another Admn 17-Feb-2010
Psychological Obstruction to Public Footpath
A public footpath crossed the appellants’ land. They constructed a gateway across it which they now accepted had been a significant obstruction of the right of way. The local authority served a notice requiring its removal, including the stone . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.401660

Quadrangle Development and Construction Co Ltd v Jenner: CA 1974

A Notice to Complete binds both parties to a land contract.
Buckley LJ said that the party giving the notice must be ready and willing at the time of the giving of the notice to fulfill his own outstanding obligations under the contract, and also at any time during the period of the notice up to and including the time set for completion.

Judges:

Russel LJ, Buckley LJ

Citations:

[1974] 1 ALL ER 729, [1974] 1 WLR 68

Cited by:

Cited – Westvilla Properties Ltd v Dow Properties Ltd ChD 15-Jan-2010
The owner sought specific performance of its contract to sell land to the defendant. The land was subject to a proposed lease which the defendant had concluded was uncertain and unattractive, and claimed to have rescinded the contract.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Contract

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.393014

Jelson Ltd v Blaby District Council: CA 1977

A strip of land had been originally reserved for a road, and was subsequently sold to the council under a purchase notice. A claim for compensation was made. On appeal the Minister issued a nil certificate on the basis that the correct time at which to consider whether planning permission might reasonably have been expected to be granted was the date of the deemed notice to treat and at that time, after the land on either side had been developed, the land was incapable of development.
Held: The Minister was correct. Under the judicial version of the rule permission could be assumed for residential development.

Citations:

[1977] 1 WLR 1020, (1978) 1 All ER 548

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Transport for London (London Underground Ltd) v Spirerose Ltd HL 30-Jul-2009
Compulsory Purchase Compensation – Land As it Is
The House considered the basis of calculation of compensation on the compulsory purchase of land without planning permission, but where permission would probably be granted. The appellant challenged the decision which had treated the probability as . .
Cited – Homes and Communities Agency v JS Bloor (Wilmslow) Ltd SC 22-Feb-2017
Challenge to the sums awarded on compulsory acquisition of grazing land, but which land had a substantial hope value for residential development.
Held: The tribunal’s application of these difficult provisions to the complex facts of this case . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.372587

Dovaston v Payne: CCP 10 Jan 1795

A plea in bar of an avowry for taking cattle damage-feasant, that the cattle escaped from a public highway into the locus in quo, through the defect of fence, must show that they were passing on the highway when they escaped; it is not sufficient to state that being in the highway they escaped.

Citations:

[1795] EngR 4015, (1795) 2 H Bl 527, (1795) 126 ER 684

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

Cited – Jones and Lloyd v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 23-Jan-1997
The appellants had been peacefully protesting at Stonehenge. They were among others who refused to leave when ordered to do so under an order made by the police officer in charge declaring it to be a trespassory assembly under the 1986 Act. They . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Torts – Other, Animals

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.356360

Egerton v Jones: 5 Aug 1830

An exception to a report in favour of the title having been on argument allowed, leave was given to the Plaintiff, some time afterwards, to go again before the Master, for the purpose of bringing evidence to shew that the objection which the Court had sustained, was, in the circumstances, immaterial.

Citations:

[1830] EngR 780, (1830) 1 Russ and My 694, (1830) 39 ER 266

Links:

Commonlii

Citing:

See Also – Egerton v Jones 16-Mar-1830
An estate at C was settled on A for life, remainder to his first and other sons in tail male, remainder to A. in fee. A. devised as follows : ‘As to the reversion and inheritance of the freehold estate at C., purchased by me in pursuance of my . .
See Also – Egerton v Jones 3-May-1830
Upon the allowance of exceptions to a report approving of a title, the Court will, on the application of the vendor, refer it back to the Master to review his report, in orders to give the vendor an opportunity of producing evidence to remove the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.321660

Doe On The Joint And Several Demises Of The Rev H D Broughton And D W Stow v John Gully: 1829

A rector in 1814, and after the 13 Eliz. e. 20, had been repealed, in consideration of 600l, granted, bargained, and sold the rectory and glebe lands, and all tithes, andc for 100 years, to the grantee of an annuity for securing the same, After the passing of 57 G. 3, c. 99, by deed, reciting the grant of the annuity, and that A. B. had agreed to lend the rector 600l to enable him to redeem the annuity, the grantee of the same, in consideration of 600l, by direction of the rector, assigned to A. B. the 600l by him paid for the purchase of the annuity, and the term, and the rector confirmed to A. B. the rectory for that term, for the purpose of securing the repayment of the sum advanced by him to redeem the annuity, as well as other sums : Held, that inasmuch as the term was created after the passing of the 43 G. 3, e. 84, which repealed the 13 Elk. e. 20, against charging bengfices, the assignment of it for the purpose of securing the money paid as the consideration for the annuity, was valid, and vested the legal estate in A, B., although made after the 57 G. 3, c. 99, which, perhaps, revived the 13 Eliz c. 20, so far as related to charges upon benefices.

Citations:

[1829] EngR 58, (1829) 9 B and C 344, (1829) 109 ER 128

Links:

Commonlii

Ecclesiastical, Land

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.321926

Tooth v The Dean And Chapter Of Canterbury: 13 May 1829

The Dean and Chapter of C., being rectors of a parish, leased all the tithes belonging to the rectory. The lessees filed a bill for tithe of hops against the occupiers, to which the vicar was made a party as claiming that tithe. The occupiers then file a cross-bill against the dean and chapter and their lessees, for a discovery and production of documents. Demurrer by the dean and chapter alIowed.

Citations:

[1829] EngR 460, (1829) 3 Sim 49, (1829) 57 ER 919

Links:

Commonlii

Ecclesiastical, Land

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.322328

Egerton v Jones: 3 May 1830

Upon the allowance of exceptions to a report approving of a title, the Court will, on the application of the vendor, refer it back to the Master to review his report, in orders to give the vendor an opportunity of producing evidence to remove the objection.

Citations:

[1830] EngR 549, (1830) 3 Sim 392, (1830) 57 ER 1044 (B)

Links:

Commonlii

Citing:

See Also – Egerton v Jones 16-Mar-1830
An estate at C was settled on A for life, remainder to his first and other sons in tail male, remainder to A. in fee. A. devised as follows : ‘As to the reversion and inheritance of the freehold estate at C., purchased by me in pursuance of my . .

Cited by:

See Also – Egerton v Jones 5-Aug-1830
An exception to a report in favour of the title having been on argument allowed, leave was given to the Plaintiff, some time afterwards, to go again before the Master, for the purpose of bringing evidence to shew that the objection which the Court . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.321429

Evans v Getting: 1835

The manors of R and S the parishes of C and of Y, and the counties of Brecon were coterminous:
Held: that in an action for disturbance of common, in which the boundaries of the two manors came in question, a county history of the county of Brecon, which stated the boundaries of he counties at this spot, was not receivable in evidence.

Citations:

[1835] EngR 88, (1835) 6 Car and P 586, (1835) 172 ER 1376

Links:

Commonlii

Land, Evidence

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.315596

In re An Act For Enabling The Newcastle And Darlington Junction Railway Company To Purchase The Brandling Junction Railway And In The Matter Of The York, Newcastle And Berwick Railway Act, 1847 etc: 7 Mar 1856

One of the conditions at an attempted sale by auction under a decree provided that the purchase should be completed on a day named, and that, if from any cause whatever the purchase-money should not then be paid, interest should be paid from that date. The purchase was by private contract, subject to the conditions of sale, and also subject to the purchase being approved by the Court. The purchase-money was a fund in Court, and after a long delay the conveyancing counsel approved of the title for the purchasers.
Held: Neither party being to blame for the delay, the purchasers could not be relieved from their obligation to pay interest.

Citations:

[1856] EngR 326, (1856) 3 Sm and G 307, (1856) 65 ER 671

Links:

Commonlii

Contract, Land

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.291081

Scott v Jackman: 10 Nov 1855

By the conditions of sale, the title-deeds were to be delivered to ‘the purchaser of the largest lot’. A purchased the largets lot in value, and extent, but B purchased several lots, whose aggregate value and extent exceed those of A’s title.
Held: A was entitled to custody of the deeds.

Citations:

[1855] EngR 774, (1855) 21 Beav 110, (1855) 52 ER 800

Links:

Commonlii

Land

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.292696

Randall v Stevens And Others: 25 Jun 1853

A landlord evicted a tenant who had failed to pay any rent for twenty years. Statute provided that a house could not be repossessed simply by exercising a right of entry.
Held: Lord Campbell LC, giving the judgment of the Court of Queen’s Bench on appeal from a judgment given at assizes, held that entry could be made ‘by stepping on any corner of the land in the night time and pronouncing a few words, without any intention or wish to take possession.’ However, where possession was taken with an intention to possess, then ‘whether possession was retained by the landlord an hour or a week must for this purpose [i.e. taking possession other than by mere entry] be immaterial.’

Judges:

Lord Campbell LC

Citations:

[1853] EngR 767, (1853) 2 El and Bl 641, (1853) 118 ER 907

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

Cited – Zarb and Another v Parry and Another CA 15-Nov-2011
The parties disputed the position of the boundary between their neighbouring properties. The appellant Z had succeeded in establishing that the the boundary was as they decribed on paper, but the respondents had succeeded in their claim for adverse . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Limitation

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.294753

Jane Robbins, Administratrix of Edwin James Robbins, Deceased v Jones: 16 Nov 1863

It is for the grantee of an easement, and not the grantor, to maintain and repair the subject matter of the easement, with a duty to do so if by his neglect the servient tenement suffers damage.

Citations:

[1863] EngR 956, (1863) 15 CB NS 221, (1863) 143 ER 768

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

Cited – Southwark London Borough Council v Mills/Tanner; Baxter v Camden London Borough Council HL 21-Oct-1999
Tenants of council flats with ineffective sound insulation argued that the landlord council was in breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment in their tenancy agreements.
Held: A landlord’s duty to allow quiet enjoyment does not extend to a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.283611

Bidaisee v Dorinsa Yusidai Sampath and Others: PC 1993

(Trinidad and Tobago) The parties contracted for the sale of a half share of land to the co-owner for TT$2 million. A 10% deposit was paid. A notice to complete was not met. The vendor sold the share to others for more. Arguments as to the validity of the notice were not upheld. One ground of appeal was refusal to return the deposit under the equivalent of section 49(2).
Held: The refusal was upheld. Lord Nicholls noted that the gain represented by the retention of the deposit was offset by the amount of interest he would have received if the sale had been completed on time, and: ‘Even so, and having regard to the price of the resale to (the third party) he did not suffer a loss. This, of itself and without more, is not a sufficient reason for the court to exercise its discretion in favour of a defaulting buyer. The traditional deposit paid by a buyer when he enters into a contract is an earnest for the performance of the contract, and can be retained by the seller if the buyer defaults. Equity does not regard this as a penalty against which it granted relief: see Workers Trust and Merchant back Ltd v Dojap Investment Ltd [1993] A.C. 573 578-9. Section 49(2) has never been understood as intended to overrule this principle, and it should not be so interpreted or applied.
So the search is for something more. In the present case the money spent by the plaintiff on work done in connection with the land does not qualify under this head, for the lack of evidence of the effect of such expenditure on the value of the land. Nor does the first defendant’s profit on re-selling at a higher price to the (third parties). In the first place, against the uplift of $500,000 in the price must be set the loss of interest already mentioned. Secondly, and more generally, their Lordships simply do not know the reason for the higher price. This may be due to movements in land prices generally. Once again their Lordships are being asked to speculate. This is not a proper basis on which the court should exercise its discretion.’

Judges:

Goff, Mustill, Slynn, Nicholls and Steyn

Citations:

33 of 1993

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Citing:

Cited – Workers Trust and Merchant Bank Ltd v Dojap Investments Ltd PC 22-Feb-1993
(Jamaica) The purchaser at an auction had been obliged under the terms of the auction contract to pay a deposit of 25%. He failed to complete, and the vendor took the deposit by way of forfeit. The standard deposit payable would be 10%. The Court of . .

Cited by:

Cited – MIDILL (97Pl) Ltd v Park Lane Estates Ltd and Another CA 11-Nov-2008
Refusal to return Land Contract Deposit
The court was asked as to whether a seller could retain a deposit paid by the claimant on a sale where contracts had been exchanged but the buyer had proved unable to go ahead.
Held: The appeal against refusal of return of the deposit failed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Contract

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.279045

Lovett v Fairclough: 1990

Citations:

(1990) 61 P and CR 385

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.279926

Southern Portland Cement Ltd v Cooper: PC 1974

Since the duty of an occupier towards a trespasser was based not on the relationship forced upon him but on consideration of humanity, the occupier’s duty only arose if he had knowledge of or had created the danger on his land; that no unreasonable burden was to be placed on an occupier and accordingly an occupier was entitled to consider all the disadvantages to himself in taking action for the protection of trespassers and weigh them against the degree of likelihood of trespassers and the degree of hidden or unexpected danger to which trespassers may be exposed: ‘If the occupier creates the danger when he knows that there is a chance that trespassers will come that way and will not see or realise the danger he may have to do more. There may be difficult cases where the occupier will be hampered in the conduct of his own affairs if he has to take elaborate precautions. But in the present case it would have been easy to prevent the development of the dangerous situation which caused the plaintiff’s injuries. The more serious the danger the greater is the obligation to avoid it. And if the dangerous thing or something near it is an allurement to children that may greatly increase the chance that children will come there.
Next comes the question to whom does the occupier owe a duty. Their Lordships have already rejected the view that no duty is owed unless the advent of a trespasser is extremely probable. It was argued that the duty could be limited to cases where the coming of trespassers is more probable than not’
Lord Reid said: ‘Next comes the question to whom does the occupier owe a duty. Their Lordships have already rejected the view that no duty is owed unless the advent of a trespasser is extremely probable. It was argued that the duty could be limited to cases where the coming of trespassers is more probable than not. Their Lordships can find neither principle nor authority nor any practical reason to justify such a limitation. The only rational or practical answer would seem to be that the occupier is entitled to neglect a bare possibility that trespassers may come to a particular place on his land but is bound at least to give consideration to the matter when he knows facts which show a substantial chance that they may come there.’

Judges:

Lord Reid

Citations:

[1974] AC 623, [1974] 2 WLR 152, [1974] 1 All ER 87

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Rose v Plenty CA 7-Jul-1975
Contrary to his employers orders, a milkman allowed children to assist him in his milkround. One was injured, and sued the milkman’s employer.
Held: The milkman had not gone so far outside the activities for which he was employed for the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Land

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.278319

Delacherois v Delacherois: HL 30 Jul 1864

Citations:

(1864) 11 HL Cas 62, [1864] EngR 680, (1862-64) 11 HLC 62, (1864) 11 ER 1254

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Corpus Christi College Oxford v Gloucestershire County Council CA 1983
The court considered the result where the freehold of what had formerly been waste of the manor became severed from the lordship.
Held: It ceased to be part of the manor. Lord Denning MR described the historical basis of the ownership of land . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.269755

Anon: 1704

If a man has a right of any wreck thrown upon another’s land he has a right of way over the same land to take it: ‘Originally all wrecks were in the Crown and the King has a right of way over any man’s ground for his wreck; and the same privilege goes to the grantee thereof.’

Citations:

(1704) 6 Mod 149

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Crown Estate Commissioners v Roberts and Another ChD 13-Jun-2008
The defendant claimed ownership as Lord Marcher of St Davids of historical rights in foreshores in Pembrokeshire. The claimants sought removal of his cautions against first registration.
Held: Lewison J explored the history of manorial . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.269753

Dickens v Shaw: 1822

A right to ‘wreck’ will not of itself confer a title by presumption of law to the ownershipof the soil above the shore as against the Crown.
Holroyd J discussed whether a grant of a right of wreck include also any right in the land: ‘I think it may be evidence of ownership, particularly if coupled with other acts of ownership of the right of soil. Where the crown grants the right of wreck it is probable the crown grants the right of soil also; but if the crown grant the right of wreck alone, by that grant the party would have the right to come and take the wreck, as incidental to the grant, otherwise the grant of the right could not be the grant of anything whatever.’

Judges:

Holroyd J

Citations:

Hall on the Seashore from 1822

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Crown Estate Commissioners v Roberts and Another ChD 13-Jun-2008
The defendant claimed ownership as Lord Marcher of St Davids of historical rights in foreshores in Pembrokeshire. The claimants sought removal of his cautions against first registration.
Held: Lewison J explored the history of manorial . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.269752

Reeve v Digby: 1638

A claim was made that the defendant had disturbed the common by digging and removing turf and by digging a fish pond.
Held: A finding that the digging of turfs was a disturbance but not the construction of the pond was not repugnant because the allegation was for disturbance in different respects.

Citations:

(1638) Cro Car 495, (1638) 79 ER 1027

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.269749

The Attorney-General v Parmeter And Others In Re Portsmouth Harbour: CEC 1811

The defendants claimed rights under a charter granted by Charles I in 1628 granting lands and marshes subject to the overflowing of the sea. The charter declared that it had been granted in consideration and as compensation for the future expense of reclaiming the land from the sea. In fact nothing had been done under the charter until 1784, when the defendants began to build a wharf.
Held: MacDonald CB said: ‘Let us next examine the common doctrine in the case of a grant made, and of which no advantage has been taken, and which has never been acted upon for a century and a half. It is most manifestly clear, either that the grant was never acted upon at all, or we must presume that it was surrendered, if ever the grantees did avail themselves of it. It has been argued thus: that supposing this was the case of a subject who had not acted upon such a grant for one hundred and forty years, the presumption must be the same as it was in the case of The Mayor of Kingston-upon Hull v Horner and the case of The Advowson of Chester-le-Street. In those cases there was nothing produced but a grant made at a distant time. The Court said, time must determine the title. Whenever we see a length of possession of this time, we must presume from the lapse of time, that an adverse grant is surrendered. So where we find the King by his subjects still in possession of this soil, by the passing and repassing of such vessels as can pass and repass, we must conclude that if it ever existed in force this grant had been in the interim surrendered to the Crown.’

Judges:

MacDonald CB

Citations:

(1811) 10 Price 378, [1811] EngR 645, (1811) 147 ER 345

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Crown Estate Commissioners v Roberts and Another ChD 13-Jun-2008
The defendant claimed ownership as Lord Marcher of St Davids of historical rights in foreshores in Pembrokeshire. The claimants sought removal of his cautions against first registration.
Held: Lewison J explored the history of manorial . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.269745

Attorney-General v Trustees of the British Museum: 1903

A right to treasure trove did not pass by general words in a Crown charter, but had to be expressly granted.

Judges:

Farwell J

Citations:

[1903] 2 Ch 598

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Crown Estate Commissioners v Roberts and Another ChD 13-Jun-2008
The defendant claimed ownership as Lord Marcher of St Davids of historical rights in foreshores in Pembrokeshire. The claimants sought removal of his cautions against first registration.
Held: Lewison J explored the history of manorial . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.269751

Peers v Lucy: 1694

A person cannot in law prescribe a right to catch fish for himself and his servants and for his several fisheries, in another man’s land. Though the law knows of easements, a right of fishery is a right to the thing itself – the fish and is not properly an easement.

Citations:

[1694] 4 Mod Rep 355, [1694] ER 441

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Agriculture, Land

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.269748

Duke of Somerset v Fogwell: 1826

Where a subject is owner of a several fishery in a navigable river, where the tide flows and reflows, granted to him (as must be presumed) before Magna Charta, by the description of ‘separalem piscariam,’ that is an incorporeal and not a territorial hereditament, and a term for years in it cannot be created without deed. Semble, that the owner of a several fishery, in ordinary cases, and where the terms of the grant are unknown, may be presumed to be owner of the soil.

Citations:

(1826) 5 B and C 875, [1826] EngR 601, (1826) 108 ER 325

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – The Case of the Royal Fishery of the Banne 1610
A royal fishery did not pass by a general grant of all fisheries, because general words in a grant did not pass ‘special royalty which belongeth to the Crown by prerogative’. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Crown Estate Commissioners v Roberts and Another ChD 13-Jun-2008
The defendant claimed ownership as Lord Marcher of St Davids of historical rights in foreshores in Pembrokeshire. The claimants sought removal of his cautions against first registration.
Held: Lewison J explored the history of manorial . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agriculture, Land

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.269750

Corpus Christi College Oxford v Gloucestershire County Council: CA 1983

The court considered the result where the freehold of what had formerly been waste of the manor became severed from the lordship.
Held: It ceased to be part of the manor. Lord Denning MR described the historical basis of the ownership of land by Lords of the manor: ‘In mediaeval times the manor was the nucleus of English rural life. It was an administrative unit of an extensive area of land. The whole of it was owned originally by the lord of the manor. He lived in the big house called the manor house. Attached to it were many acres of grassland and woodlands called the park. These were the ‘demesne lands’ which were for the personal use of the lord of the manor. Dotted all round were the enclosed homes and land occupied by the ‘tenants of the manor.’ They held them by copyhold tenure. Their titles were entered in the court rolls of the manor. They were nearly equivalent to freehold, but the tenants were described as ‘tenants of the manor.’ The rest of the manorial lands were the ‘waste lands of the manor.’ The tenants of the manor had the right to graze their animals on the waste lands of the manor. Although the demesne land was personal to the lord of the manor, nevertheless he sometimes granted to the tenants of the manor the right to graze their animals on it, or they acquired it by custom. In such a case their right to graze on the demesne land was indistinguishable from their right to graze on the waste lands of the manor, so long as it remained open to them and uncultivated, although there might be hedges and gates to keep the cattle from straying. So much so that their rights over it became known as a ‘right of common’ and the land became known as ‘common land.’

In the course of time, however, the lordship of the manor became severed from the lands of the manor. This was where the lord of the manor sold off parcels of the land to purchasers. He might, for instance, sell off the demesne lands and convey them as a distinct property. Thenceforward the land ceased to form part of the manor and was held by a freeholder: see Delacherois v. Delacherois (1864) 11 H.L.Cas. 62 , 102-103 by Lord St. Leonards. But no such conveyance could adversely affect the rights of common of those who were entitled to them as tenants of the manor or otherwise. No lord of the manor could, by alienation, deprive those entitled of their rights over it or in respect of it: see Swayne’s case (1609) 8 Co.Rep. 63a and Reg. v. Duchess of Buccleuch (1704) 1 Salk. 358.’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR

Citations:

[1983] 1 QB 360

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Swayne’s case 1609
No lord of the manor could, by alienation, deprive those entitled of their rights over it or in respect of it. . .
Cited – Regina v Duchess of Buccleuch 1704
. .
Cited – Delacherois v Delacherois HL 30-Jul-1864
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Crown Estate Commissioners v Roberts and Another ChD 13-Jun-2008
The defendant claimed ownership as Lord Marcher of St Davids of historical rights in foreshores in Pembrokeshire. The claimants sought removal of his cautions against first registration.
Held: Lewison J explored the history of manorial . .
Cited – Walker and Another v Burton and Another CA 14-Oct-2013
The Burtons had purchased the former Hall of the village of Ireby, and been registered as proprietors of the Lordhsip of the Manor. The villagers had successfully challenged the registration. The Court now considered the circumstances in which the . .
Cited – Littlejohns and Another v Devon County Council and Another CA 6-May-2016
Appeal against rejection of request for registration of land as a common: ‘At the heart of the appeal lies the question of law whether it is possible to acquire a right of common by virtue of an express grant or (as in the present case) user after 2 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.269738

Swayne’s case: 1609

No lord of the manor could, by alienation, deprive those entitled of their rights over it or in respect of it.

Citations:

(1609) 8 Co.Rep. 63a

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Corpus Christi College Oxford v Gloucestershire County Council CA 1983
The court considered the result where the freehold of what had formerly been waste of the manor became severed from the lordship.
Held: It ceased to be part of the manor. Lord Denning MR described the historical basis of the ownership of land . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.269739

Great Eastern Railway v Goldsmid: 1884

The City of London Corporation had implicitly given up a franchise consisting of an exclusive right to markets within London that had apparently been conferred on it by an Act or charter of Edward III in circumstances in which it had acquiesced for centuries in the holding of other markets. Lord Selborne discussed the reasoning behind te law of prescription: ‘In the first place, if there be a valuable principle in our law, the observation of which within its proper limits is of cardinal importance, it is this, that all reasonable presumptions shall be made in support and not in destruction of long enjoyment and usage . . .It is, as I have said, a principle of vital importance to the maintenance of public and private rights in this country, where no law can be repealed by mere desuetude, that reasonable presumptions shall be made of all things which are reasonably possible in support of such long enjoyment.’

Judges:

Lord Selborne

Citations:

(1884) 9 App Cas 927

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Crown Estate Commissioners v Roberts and Another ChD 13-Jun-2008
The defendant claimed ownership as Lord Marcher of St Davids of historical rights in foreshores in Pembrokeshire. The claimants sought removal of his cautions against first registration.
Held: Lewison J explored the history of manorial . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Limitation

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.269744

Regina v Duchess of Buccleuch: 1704

Citations:

(1704) 1 Salk 358

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Corpus Christi College Oxford v Gloucestershire County Council CA 1983
The court considered the result where the freehold of what had formerly been waste of the manor became severed from the lordship.
Held: It ceased to be part of the manor. Lord Denning MR described the historical basis of the ownership of land . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.269740

Berkeley Peerage case: 1858

Lord St Leonards explained section 1 of the 1660 Act which removed all the ‘fruits and consequents’ of tenure in capite of the Crown: ‘Not only were all tenures in capite . . taken away, but the lands were for ever turned into free and common socage. How can the Castle and Estate of Berkeley, holden as it now is by free and common socage, and not in capite or in chief, carry with it a right in its possessor to sit in this House? It confers upon him just the same right, but no higher than the humblest cottage confers on its owner. The feudal tenure being abolished, of course the privileges annexed or flowing from it have ceased.’

Judges:

Lord St Leonards

Citations:

(1858-61) 8 HLC 21

Statutes:

Abolition of Tenures Act 1660 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Crown Estate Commissioners v Roberts and Another ChD 13-Jun-2008
The defendant claimed ownership as Lord Marcher of St Davids of historical rights in foreshores in Pembrokeshire. The claimants sought removal of his cautions against first registration.
Held: Lewison J explored the history of manorial . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.269741

Red House Farms (Thorndon) Ltd v Catchpole: CA 1977

Cairns LJ said: ‘The authorities make it clear that what constitutes possession of any particular piece of land must depend upon the nature of the land and what it is capable of use for: see, for example, Tecbild Ltd v Chamberlain (1969) 20 P and CR 633, at p 641. I am quite satisfied that between 1945 and 1964 the only profitable use of this land was for shooting. Our attention was drawn by Mr Cullen, on behalf of the defendant, to the Privy Council case of Cadija Umma and Anr v S Don Manis Appu [1939] AC 136, where, as appears at p 140, cutting the grass was treated as possession in relation to the particular piece of land. So here I think that the learned judge was quite right to treat the shooting activity as constituting possession.’
Waller LJ said: ‘But, in my view, it is clear from the authorities that when considering what is required to amount to possession the court should look at the nature of the land which is being considered, and, as I see it, if the only purpose for which the land can be used is for shooting, and that is the actual use made in this case by the defendant, then that is an act of possession which is quite sufficient for the judge to draw the inferences which he did.’

Judges:

Cairns LJ, Waller LJ

Citations:

[1977] 1 EGLR 125

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Roberts v Swangrove Estates Ltd and Another ChD 14-Mar-2007
The court heard preliminary applications in a case asserting acquisition of land by adverse possession, the land being parts of the foreshore of the Severn Estuary.
Held: A person may acquire title to part of the bed of a tidal river by . .
Cited – The Port of London Authority v Ashmore CA 4-Feb-2010
The Port sought to register ownership of the river bed and tidal foreshore. The defendant’s boat had been moored at a wharf, and he claimed adverse possession. The court was asked whether it was possible to acquire any title by adverse possession to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.267351

Spook Erection Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment: CA 1989

Nourse LJ explained the nature of a franchise in land: ‘The right which was granted to one Anthony Bourchier by the letters patent of 29 June 1637 was a franchise; an incorporeal hereditament which has been authoritatively defined as a royal privilege or branch of the royal prerogative subsisting in the hands of a subject, by grant from the King: see Chitty: The Prerogatives of the Crown (1820), p. 119.’

Judges:

Nourse LJ

Citations:

[1989] QB 300

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Crown Estate Commissioners v Roberts and Another ChD 13-Jun-2008
The defendant claimed ownership as Lord Marcher of St Davids of historical rights in foreshores in Pembrokeshire. The claimants sought removal of his cautions against first registration.
Held: Lewison J explored the history of manorial . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.269743

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 the definition clause of the Act so as to provide that a conveyance shall operate not only to convey everything that the person could convey, but also to appoint everything he could appoint.’

Citations:

[1920] 1 Ch 313

Statutes:

Conveyancing Act 1881 63

Cited by:

Cited – Harbour Estates Limited v HSBC Bank Plc ChD 15-Jul-2004
The lease contained a break clause. The parties disputed whether the benefit of the clause was personal to the orginal lessee, or whether it touched and concerned the land, and therefore the benefit of it passed with the land.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.263194

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:

Conveyancing Act 1881 63

Cited by:

Cited – Harbour Estates Limited v HSBC Bank Plc ChD 15-Jul-2004
The lease contained a break clause. The parties disputed whether the benefit of the clause was personal to the orginal lessee, or whether it touched and concerned the land, and therefore the benefit of it passed with the land.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.263193

William Cory and Son Limited v Inland Revenue Commissioners: CA 1964

Lord Denning MR discussed what was meant by delivery of a document in escrow: ‘When an instrument is delivered in escrow, that only means that it is delivered on condition (which may be expressed or implied by conduct) that it is not to be operative until some condition is performed: see Norton on Deeds 2nd Edition page 18. A good instance is where, on a proposed sale of land, only part of the purchase price has been paid, but the vendor lets the purchaser into possession and delivers the deed to the purchaser’s solicitor, and tells him to hold it until the balance is paid. The deed is clearly delivered on condition that it is not to be operative until the price is paid. Whilst the condition remains unperformed, the sale is not complete and the purchaser does not get the legal title (see Watkins v Nash in 1875 and Thompson v McCullough in 1947); but as soon as the money is paid, the sale is complete. The instrument there may precede any binding contract. But when the sale is complete it is clearly a conveyance on sale and is liable to stamp duty.’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR

Citations:

[1964] 3 All ER 66

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Bank of Scotland Plc v King and others ChD 23-Nov-2007
The parties contracted to buy and sell a property. The lending bank sought possession, saying that it had advanced the money which had been spent acquirng the property. The defendant purchasers said that completion had not taken place, the full . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Contract, Stamp Duty

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.261514

Thompson v McCullough: CA 1947

Thompson had agreed to buy a tenanted property, had paid part of the purchase price, and had received a conveyance in escrow pending payment of the balance. He at that point gave McCullough notice to quit. Two months later Thompson paid the balance of the purchase money.
Held: The court considered what would constitute delivery of an agreement in escrow. Morton LJ said: ‘The question of whether a document is delivered as an escrow or as a deed is in general one of fact, and I think that the following passage from Norton on Deeds . . accurately states the law: ‘Whether the document was delivered as an escrow or as a deed is a question of what the parties intended, and that intention may appear either from their statements or the circumstances.’ The learned author then quotes the following observation of Parke B. in Bowker v Burdekin (1843) 11 MandW 128 at 147: ‘you are to look at all the facts attending the execution, to all that took place at the time, and to the result of the transaction; and therefore, though it is in form an absolute delivery, if it can reasonably be inferred that it was delivered not to take effect as a deed till a certain condition was performed, it will nevertheless operate as an escrow.’ The author goes on: ‘thus the delivery of a transfer of mortgage was held to be in escrow until the mortgage money had been paid . . and of a conveyance until the purchase money has been paid . . The circumstances relied upon to show delivery as an escrow must be prior to or contemporaneous with, not subsequent to, the delivery.
Evidence is, of course, admissible as to what were the circumstances attending the delivery . . and the question is in general one of fact for the jury.’
The notice to quit was invalid because the fee simple was not effectively vested in the giver of the notice: and satisfaction of the condition of the escrow could not retrospectively validate that notice.

Judges:

Morton, Bucknill and Asquith LJJ

Citations:

[1947] 1 KB 447

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Bowker v Burdekin 1843
Parke B considered how a court identified whether a document had been delivered in escrow: ‘you are to look at all the facts attending the execution, to all that took place at the time, and to the result of the transaction; and therefore, though it . .

Cited by:

Cited – Bank of Scotland Plc v King and others ChD 23-Nov-2007
The parties contracted to buy and sell a property. The lending bank sought possession, saying that it had advanced the money which had been spent acquirng the property. The defendant purchasers said that completion had not taken place, the full . .
Cited – Stodday Land Ltd and Another v Pye ChD 7-Oct-2016
The agricultural landlord sold part of his land subject to the respondent’s tenancy to the appellant. Before the transfer was registered, notices to quit were served by both the landlord and his buyer. The tenant challenged both notices in the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Contract

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.261510

In re Niyazi’s Will Trusts: 1978

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

Citations:

[1978] 1 WLR 910

Cited by:

Cited – Dano Ltd v Earl Cadogan and others ChD 21-Feb-2003
A conveyance contained a covenant from 1929 restricting use of the land to the provision of housing for ‘the working classes.’ The land owner sought a declaration that the covenant was no longer enforceable on the grounds of vagueness.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.180094

Jacques v Secretary of State for the Environment: QBD 8 Jun 1994

Public right of way must be established by enjoyment as of right for 20 years.

Citations:

Independent 08-Jun-1994

Statutes:

Highways Act 1980 31(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Jacques v Secretary of State for the Environment CA 1995
The Inspector had found that the landowner had, by overt acts directed at users of the way in question, including the erection of locked gates and of fencing and of notices, disproved any intention on his part to dedicate.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.82466

Mansukhani v Sharkey: CA 27 May 1992

A transfer which was expressed to have been given for natural love and affection was truly a gift and not a sale, despite the apparent existence of some consideration.

Citations:

Gazette 27-May-1992

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.83389

McAlpine v Secretary of State for the Environment and Another: QBD 6 Dec 1994

The extent of a curtilage was to be determined as at the time when a dispute arose, but historical evidence remained relevant.

Citations:

Times 06-Dec-1994, [1995] 1 PLR 16

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Crockett v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and another Admn 24-Oct-2002
The applicant built a shed on land behind his bungalow, but without planning consent. The planning authority issued enforcement proceedings. He appealed, contending that it fell within the Order. The inspector visited the property, and decided that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Land

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.83491

Cotton v Derbyshire District Council: CA 20 Jun 1994

No notice warning of danger was necessary on a public right of way for an obviously dangerous cliff. The Court upheld the decision of the trial judge dismissing the plaintiff’s claim for damages for serious injuries sustained from falling off a cliff. Applying Glasgow Corporation v Taylor the Court held that the occupiers were under no duty to provide protection against dangers which are themselves obvious.

Citations:

Times 20-Jun-1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Glasgow Corporation v Taylor HL 18-Nov-1921
A father brought an action for damages for the death of his son who had eaten poisonous berries growing in one of the defenders’ public parks. The plants were easily accessible from a children’s play area and it was said that the defender had a duty . .

Cited by:

Cited – Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council and others HL 31-Jul-2003
The claimant dived into a lake, severely injuring himself. The council appealed liability, arguing that it owed him no duty of care under the Act since he was a trespasser. It had placed warning signs to deter swimmers.
Held: The council’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.79529

Bland v Ingrams Estates Ltd and Others (1): CA 18 Jan 2001

An equitable charge of a lease has standing to apply to court for relief from forfeiture for non-payment of rent, where the tenant did not himself seek relief, but only indirectly on the basis that the lessee and chargor has a duty to take reasonable steps to preserve the charge’s security. The tenant stands in a similar position to a trustee unwilling to defend trust assets, and the chargee can act joining in the tenant as defendant and claim relief in the tenant’s shoes.

Citations:

Times 18-Jan-2001

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 146(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Bland v Ingrams Estates Ltd and Others (No 2) CA 11-Jul-2001
The tenant had allowed an equitable charge over his lease in favour of a creditor. The lease was forfeited by peaceable re-entry for non-payment of rent, and the chargee sought relief from forfeiture. A new tenancy had been granted in the mean-time. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Land, Equity

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.78444

Blue Circle Industries Plc v Ministry of Defence: ChD 11 Dec 1996

Damages for escape of nuclear waste to include diminution of land value. Radioactive pollution of land following such an overflow is physical damage.

Citations:

Gazette 15-Jan-1997, Times 11-Dec-1996

Statutes:

Nuclear Installations Act 1965

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed to – Blue Circle Industries Plc v Ministry of Defence CA 16-Jun-1998
Contamination of land by the overflow of radioactive materials from a pond, led to damages for the cost of repair, and also the permanent diminution of the value in the land from physical damage.
Held: The Court dismissed the appeal of the . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Blue Circle Industries Plc v Ministry of Defence CA 16-Jun-1998
Contamination of land by the overflow of radioactive materials from a pond, led to damages for the cost of repair, and also the permanent diminution of the value in the land from physical damage.
Held: The Court dismissed the appeal of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment, Land

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.78451

Francis Sinclair, Esq, Brother of The Right Hon Alexander, Earl of Caithness, and His Majesty’S Advocate for Scotland v Earl of Breadalbane, Sir Wm Dunbar, Sir Wm Sinclair, and George Sin Clair of Ulbster, Esq: HL 22 Feb 1759

Prescription – Negative and Positive. –
A conveyance by the Earl of Caithness, of his estates, reserving to himself power to redeem within six years, and to the heir male of his body at any time, to be irredeemable after that period;-Held that the long prescriptive possession, for more than forty years after the expiry of the six years, and failure of issue male, was a sufficient title to exclude.

Citations:

[1759] UKHL 6 – Paton – 728

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.558275

William Campbell v Margaret Campbell and Husband: HL 17 Feb 1743

A destination of personal property to A; and in case of his decease to B, found to be a proper substitution, which subsisted although the institute survived the testator.
Found that this substitution, although alterable by the institute, was not affected by a previous general disposition of all that might belong to him at his death.

Citations:

[1743] UKHL 1 – Paton – 343, (1743) 1 Paton 343

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.556793

John Gordon, Esq, Second Son of Sir James Gordon of Park; v His Majesty’s Advocate: HL 4 Feb 1754

After a party was attainted for high treason, two sons were born to him abroad. And the forfeiture of his estate was declared to endure during the lifetime of the attainted person and his issue male. A claim was lodged by a substitute heir of entail, after the death of the attainted person, but while his sons were still alive, for possession of the estate, on the ground that as the attainted person was now dead, and his sons aliens, and so incapable of succeeding, he was entitled to the estate. Held on a question of law raised by the judges in England, that as the sons were aliens, and so incapable of succeeding, the interest of the Crown had determined-reversing the judgment of the Court of Session.

Citations:

[1754] UKHL 1 – Paton – 558

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.558218

Cronin v Sutherland: 1899

The parties disputed whether a servitude right of passage which had been limited to the use of the road by carts drawn by horses and laden with fuel or manure could be used by the owners of the dominant tenement as a means of egress from their property for vehicles containing the contents of an ashpit.
Held: There must be a strict interpretation of the document produced, so as not to make the burden upon the servient tenement more heavy than is the necessary consequence of the grant.

Judges:

Lord Justice Clerk Macdonald

Citations:

(1899) 2 F 217

Cited by:

Cited – Moncrieff and Another v Jamieson and others HL 17-Oct-2007
The parties disputed whether a right of way over a road included an implied right for the dominant owner to park on the servient tenement.
Held: The appeal failed. ‘The question is whether the ancillary right is necessary for the comfortable . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Land

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.260023

Re Hunt’s Application: LT 1997

Application was made to relax a restrictive covenant to allow a further house to be built within a garden plot.
Held: The scheme had the primary intention of securing a relatively low density residential development of houses and bungalows. This was the first attempt to deviate from the scheme and it constituted an obtrusive and discordant departure by building on a plot which was too small. The Tribunal also referred to the possibilities of later further sub-division.
Judge Bernard Marder QC said: ‘In the circumstances therefore, I have reached the conclusion that to grant this application would have the effect of opening the first breach in a carefully maintained and successful scheme of development, and would render it more difficult to resist further applications for the subdivision of plots with the consequent threat of increasing density and loss of character. Thus to grant the application would in my judgment deprive the objectors of a substantial and valued practical benefit, namely the assurance of the continued integrity of the building scheme.’

Judges:

Judge Bernard Marder QC

Citations:

(1997) 73 PandCR 126

Citing:

Cited – Re Snaith and Dolding’s Application LT 1995
The applicants sought modification of a covenant, to enable them to build a second house on a single plot within a building scheme.
Held: ‘The position of the Tribunal is clear. Any application under section 84(1) must be determined upon the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Lawntown Ltd v Camenzuli and Another CA 10-Oct-2007
Objecting neighbours appealed against a decision allowing a variation of a restrictive covenant to allow the owner to convert a dwellinghouse into two self-contained apartments.
Held: The appeal failed. The power in the 1985 Act to vary a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.260194

Edwards v Minister of Transport: 1964

The landowner claimed for injurious affection of the remainder of his land after part was acquired by compulsory purchase.
Held: The claim for injurious affection was confined to the effects of works and uses on the land taken.

Citations:

[1964] 2 QB 134

Statutes:

Land Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 63

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Moto Hospitality Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport CA 26-Jul-2007
The company sought damages to its business on a motorway service station when works closed an access road.
Held: The Secretary of State’s appeal succeeded. A claim for compensation under section 10 had not been established, at least in respect . .
Cited – Star Energy Weald Basin Ltd and Another v Bocardo Sa SC 28-Jul-2010
The defendant had obtained a licence to extract oil from its land. In order to do so it had to drill out and deep under the Bocardo’s land. No damage at all was caused to B’s land at or near the surface. B claimed in trespass for damages. It now . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Damages

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.259680

Wolverton Urban District Council v Willis: 1962

Where a bridleway designation is not restricted, a gate erected over the line of the way is an unauthorised obstruction, though since every member of the public is entitled to pass and repass along a public road, the rights of each member of the public so to pass are subject to such obstacles, congestion and inconvenience as may be caused by the exercise by other members of the public of their rights to pass and repass along the road. As a matter of law members of the public are entitled to utilise the full width of any footpath over which they have rights of way, subject to a very narrow de minimis exception

Citations:

[1962] 1 WLR 205, [1962] 1 All ER 243

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Mear and others v Cambridgeshire County Council ChD 20-Oct-2006
The claimants sought a declaration that a path over neighbouring land was a public vehicular highway as recorded by the respondents, and not a footpath as asserted by the owners, and that gates over the path infringed the public rights. The council . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.245552

Spice and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Leeds City Council: Admn 27 Feb 2006

Landowners sought judicial review of the decision of the highway authority to refuse an application under section 117 of the 1980 Act for a highway to be stopped up under section 116. They said that the highway was unnecessary as such because it was covered with shrubbery and had never been maintained by the authority.
Held: When deciding whether a strip of land was unnecessary for the performance of highway functions the starting point was whether or not it was used for passing or re-passing, but in considering the matter it would be necessary to consider whether the land was performing an amenity or other function which required the trees or fences to be there, whether for amenity, verge protection or some other purpose. It could be necessary for the highway to perform a function in relation to safety or access for third parties.

Judges:

Ouseley J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 661 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Highways Act 1980 38

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Herrick and Another v Kidner and Another Admn 17-Feb-2010
Psychological Obstruction to Public Footpath
A public footpath crossed the appellants’ land. They constructed a gateway across it which they now accepted had been a significant obstruction of the right of way. The local authority served a notice requiring its removal, including the stone . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.244849

Marten v Flight Refuelling Limited: 1962

The court denied the existence of a building scheme.
Held: Where an owner of land, on selling part of it, sees fit to impose a restriction and expresses that restriction as being for the benefit of the land which he retains, the court will normally assume that it is capable of doing so. Wilberforce J: ‘Was the land capable of being benefited by the covenant? On this point . . the answer would appear to be simple. If an owner of land, on selling part of it, thinks fit to impose a restriction on user, and the restriction was imposed for the purpose of benefiting the land retained, the court would normally assume that it is capable of doing so. There might, of course, be exceptional cases where the covenant was on the face of it taken capriciously or not bona fide . . Why, indeed, should the court seek to substitute its own standard for those of the parties – and on what basis can it do so?’

Judges:

Wilberforce J

Citations:

[1962] Ch 115

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Lord Northbourne v Johnston and Son 1920
Sargant J said: ‘Benefit or detriment is often a question of opinion on which there may be the greatest divergence of view, and the greatest difficulty in arriving at a clear conclusion. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Small v Oliver and Saunders (Developments) Ltd ChD 25-May-2006
The claimant said his property had the benefit of covenants in a building scheme so as to allow him to object to the building of an additional house on a neighbouring plot in breach of a covenant to build only one house on the plot. Most but not all . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.242390

Lancashire v Hunt: 1894

A right of common was accepted over land to play cricket and other games on 160 acres of Stockbridge Common Down. The owner applied to prevent a local trainer from exercising his horses over the land. The trainer claimed that he had a customary right to train his horses over the common.
Held: The customary right asserted had not been established. However, the inhabitants of the borough did have the right to ride their horses for recreation over any part of the 160 acres. A second claim against villagers who asserted a right to meet on the land and to run fetes and cricket matches failed, since customary rights were established.

Judges:

Wright J

Citations:

(1894) 10 TLR 310

Cited by:

Cited – Oxfordshire County Council v Oxford City Council and others HL 24-May-2006
Application had been made to register as a town or village green an area of land which was largely a boggy marsh. The local authority resisted the application wanting to use the land instead for housing. It then rejected advice it received from a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.242324

Attorney General v Biphosphated Guano Company: CA 1879

Land might be dedicated for a term of years only and not in perpetuity, although that had not happened in this case.

Citations:

(1879) 11 Ch D 327

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Portsmouth City Football Club v Sellar Properties (Portsmouth) Limited, Singer and Friedlander Properties Plc ChD 17-Sep-2003
Various contracts were entered into for the sale of land, with compensation being paid in certain circumstances. One contract required a calculation of consideration as a set figure less a sum to be calculated as the cost of acquiring land. The sum . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.186482

Aberdeen Joint Passenger Station Committee and The Great North of Scotland Railway Co v North British Railway Co: HL 14 Nov 1894

A railway station, declared by statute to be the joint property of the Scottish North-Eastern and the Great North of Scotland Railway Companies, was built by them in 1864, and was placed under control of a joint committee of the two companies.
The Act of 1866, 29 and 30 Vict. c. 211, which transferred the rights, interest, and estate of the North-Eastern Company to the Caledonian Railway Company, by section 106 provided that ‘the North British Railway Company may, for the purpose of conveying Scottish East Coast traffic’ (which included traffic via North British lines), ‘run over and use with their engines, trucks, and carriages of every description, the Scottish North-Eastern lines, or any part thereof, and the stations, waterplaces, works, and conveniences upon and connected with the Scottish North-Eastern lines.’
The North British Railway were also entitled to the ‘joint and separate use of the offices, warehouses, stations, sidings, and other accommodation at the several stations, wharfs, stopping, loading and unloading places, sidings, and junctions of the Scottish North-Eastern lines, including, in so far as the Caledonian Company lawfully may, the station at Aberdeen and all conveniences therewith connected.’
Held (rev. the decision of the First Division) that the defenders were not entitled without the consent of the Great North of Scotland Railway Company, part-owners thereof, to use the joint-passenger station or any part thereof, or the conveniences connected therewith, for the purposes of their traffic, or to run over or use with their engines, trucks, or carriages of any description the said station or the railway through the same, or the sidings, accesses or works extending for 200 yards on each side of the passenger shed of the said joint-passenger station, or any part of the same.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Lord HerSchell), and Lords Watson, Ashbourne, Shand, and Bowen

Citations:

[1894] UKHL 442, 31 SLR 442

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Land

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.634089

Magistrates of Galashiels v Schulze: HL 14 May 1895

The General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Act 1862, by section 162, provides that ‘When any house or building, any part of which projects beyond the regular line of the street, or beyond the front of the house or building on either side thereof, has been taken down in order to be altered, or is to be rebuilt, the commissioners may require the same to be set backwards to or towards the line of the street, or the line of the adjoining houses or buildings.’
The magistrates of a burgh resolved in 1877 to widen one of the streets of the burgh to a uniform width of 40 feet. In 1893 the width of the street opposite most of the houses was 40 feet, and in some cases more, but three houses still projected 13 to 15 feet into the street beyond this limit. Upon one of these houses being taken down in order to be rebuilt, the magistrates of the burgh sought to have the proprietor ordained to set the new building back to the 40 feet line.
Held (aff. the judgment of the First Division) that the expression ‘the regular line of street’ had reference, in a street that is built upon, to the line of the buildings, and not to the line contemplated as the future line of the street, and that accordingly the magistrates were not entitled to have the new buildings set back to the 40 feet line.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Herschell) and Lords Watson and Shand

Citations:

[1895] UKHL 94, 33 SLR 94

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Land

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.634059