Category: Land

Chasemore v Richards, Clerk To The Croydon Local Board Of Health: Cexc 12 May 1857

The owner of a mill on the banks of a river cannot maintain an action against a land-owner, who sinks a deep well on his own land and by pumps and steam engine diverts the under-ground water which would otherwise have percolated the soil and flowed into the river by which, for more than sixty years, the mill was worked.

Citations:

[1857] EngR 524, (1857) 2 H and N 168, (1857) 157 ER 71

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Chasemore v Richards HL 27-Jul-1859
The House was asked whether an owner of land had a right to sink a well upon his own premises, and thereby abstract the subterranean water percolating through his own soil, which would otherwise, by the natural force of gravity, have found its way . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.290270

Chasemore v Richards: HL 27 Jul 1859

The House was asked whether an owner of land had a right to sink a well upon his own premises, and thereby abstract the subterranean water percolating through his own soil, which would otherwise, by the natural force of gravity, have found its way into springs which fed the River Wandle, the flow of which the plaintiff in that action had enjoyed for upwards of sixty years.
Held: Lord Wensleydale said that: ‘it has been now settled that the rights to the enjoyment of a natural stream of water on the surface, ex jure naturae, belongs to the proprietor of the adjoining lands, as a natural incident to the right to the soil itself, and that he is entitled to the benefit of it, as he is to all the other natural advantages belonging to the land of which he is the owner. He has the right to have it come to him in its natural state, in flow, quantity, and quality, and to go from him without obstruction; . . the riparian owner on a navigable river, in addition to the right connected with navigation to which he is entitled as one of the public, retains his rights, as an ordinary riparian owner, underlying and controlled by, but not extinguished by, the public right of navigation.’

Judges:

Lord Wensleydale

Citations:

[1859] 7 HLC 349, [1859] EngR 894, (1859) 7 HLC 349, (1859) 11 ER 140

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Chasemore v Richards, Clerk To The Croydon Local Board Of Health Cexc 12-May-1857
The owner of a mill on the banks of a river cannot maintain an action against a land-owner, who sinks a deep well on his own land and by pumps and steam engine diverts the under-ground water which would otherwise have percolated the soil and flowed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.276469

Aubergine Enterprises Limited v Lakewood International Limited: CA 26 Feb 2002

A sought confirmation that it had successfully rescinded a contract for the purchase of a leasehold property from L. Either party was to be able to rescind, if consent to the assignment had not obtained before three days before completion. There appeared to be confusion as to whether consent had been indicated between the solicitors.
Held: Words in a letter ‘subject to licence’ had different effect where there was an existing legal relationship between the parties. The consent had been given sufficiently to comply with the contract, even though informal and conditional. The seller was not in breach, and the buyer was not free to rescind.

Judges:

Lord Justice Auld, Lord Justice Ward, And, Lord Justice Robert Walker

Citations:

Gazette 11-Apr-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 177, [2002] 1 WLR 2149

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Bickel v Courtenay Investments (Nominees) Limited ChD 1984
. .
Cited – Norwich Union Life Insurance Society v Shopmoor Ltd ChD 1999
Shopmoor’s predecessors demised premises for 150 years at a yearly rent of andpound;100 on payment of a premium. A covenant provided that the tenant was not to assign or sublet without the landlord’s consent, not to be unreasonably withheld or . .
Cited – Footwear Corporation Ltd v Amplight Properties Ltd ChD 1-Apr-1998
The plaintiff was tenant of premises under a lease granted by the defendant’s predecessor in title. He vacated the premises in July 1996, and on 17 November 1997 wrote asking the defendant for a licence to sublet them to a pet shop business. The . .
Cited – City Hotels Group Ltd v Total Property Investments Ltd 6-Jul-1984
The landlords had received a request for a consent to a proposed assignment of the lease. They did not, in terms, refused consent, but had not given it notwithstanding a considerable passage of time and lengthy correspondence. The court was asked . .
Cited – Mount Eden Land Ltd v Prudential Assurance Co Ltd CA 12-Nov-1996
The Court warned against extending the ‘magic’ of the ‘subject to contract’ label into the realm of unilateral licences. The question was whether a landlord had granted licence to the tenant to carry out alterations. The letter relied on as . .
Cited – Venetian Glass Gallery Ltd v Next Properties Ltd. 1989
The court considered the significance of a reservation that a letter was sent ‘subject to licence’. After considering case law: ‘All three go to show that there is a distinction recognised by the law between the relationships, such as those between . .

Cited by:

Cited – Alchemy Estates Ltd v Astor and Another ChD 5-Nov-2008
The parties disputed the effect of a contract between them for the sale of a leasehold property. After exchange the solicitors failed to obtain the landlord’s consent to the proposed assignment as required by the lease. In the meantime the proposed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Landlord and Tenant, Land

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.167704

Derhalli v Derhalli: CA 2 Feb 2021

Second appeal brought by the appellant against an Order in possession proceedings which depended upon the proper interpretation of a Consent Order made in financial remedy proceedings following the breakdown of the marriage between the husband and the respondent.

Judges:

Lady Justice King

Citations:

[2021] EWCA Civ 112

Links:

Bailii, Judiciary

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Derhalli v Derhalli ChD 18-Nov-2019
Interpretation of financial remedies order on divorce . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.657656

Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure v Ashloch Ltd and Another: CA 29 Jan 2021

Whether the Upper Tribunal has jurisdiction under Part 4 of the Electronic Communications Code, to impose Code rights over land in favour of an operator which is already in occupation of the same land under a tenancy granted before the Code came into force; and which is continuing after its contractual expiry date under section 24(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. In more precise terms, the UT was answering a preliminary issue framed in the following terms:
‘Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to impose a Code agreement pursuant to paragraph 20 of the Code in circumstances where there is an existing 1954 Act protected tenancy in place.’

Judges:

Davis, Lewison, Arnold LJJ

Citations:

[2021] EWCA Civ 90, [2021] WLR(D) 67

Links:

Bailii, WLRD, Judiciary

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land, Litigation Practice

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.657387

Day, Regina (on The Application of) v Shropshire Council: CA 23 Dec 2020

When a local authority disposes of land which is subject to a statutory trust for public recreational purposes without complying with the relevant statutory requirements, does that trust continue or end; and, in either case, what are the legal implications for the authority and the disponee?

Judges:

Lord Justice David Richards, Lord Justice Hickinbottom and Lady Justice Andrews

Citations:

[2020] EWCA Civ 1751

Links:

Bailii, Judicary

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land, Planning

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.657110

Kirklees Council v Information Commissioner and Pali Ltd: UTAA 10 Mar 2011

Information rights – Environmental information – general -‘ the Commissioner’s determination that all of the information requested must be made available by the Appellant to the Second Respondent for examination in situ without charge, and that the Appellant was in breach of its duties under the Regulations in declining to do so, was correct and is confirmed. For the avoidance of doubt, this only requires the Appellant to make available for examination information held by it, whether electronically or in physical form, from which a set of answers to the standard enquiries on form Con29R in relation to the property can be derived. It does not require the Appellant to conduct any more refined evaluation of any such information or its actual relevance (if any) to any such enquiry, or to provide any information in the form of actual or putative answers to the enquiries themselves. Nor does it require the disclosure of any personal data contrary to Regulation 13.’

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 104 (AAC), [2011] AACR 44

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environmental Information Regulations 2004, Local Land Charges Act 1975 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land, Local Government, Information

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.433518

Peyton and Others v The Mayor and Commonalty of London as Governors of St Thomas’s Hospital: 7 Jul 1829

Case by a reversioner of a house in Cheapside against the owner of the adjoining house, for pulling it down without shoring up the plaintiffs house, in consequence whereof it was impaired, and in part fell down : Held, first that upon this declaration the plaintiff could not recover on the ground of the defendant’s not having given notice that he was about to pull down his house, that not being alleged as a cause of the injury ; secondly, that as the plaintiff had not alleged or proved any right to have his house supported by the defendant’s, he was bound to protect himself by shoring, and could not complain that the defendant had neglected to do it.

Citations:

[1829] EngR 599, (1829) 9 B and C 725, (1829) 109 ER 269

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.322467

Kaye v Basingstoke Corporation: LT 1968

The Tribunal discussed compensation on compulsory purchase, and how the extent of the underlying scheme was to be identified: ‘Before the 1939 war it is broadly, perhaps entirely, true to say that the application of the common law rule was comparatively simple in so far as discovering what ‘the scheme underlying the acquisition’ was. There was usually an Act, public but more often private, or an Order which defined the scheme and the area wherein it was to operate. But in the post-war years a new conception of planning led to a series of measures which gave to local authorities, of one kind or another, planning powers of a much less detailed although more far-reaching character.’

Judges:

Sir Michael Rowe QC

Citations:

(1968) 20 P and CR 417

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 September 2022; Ref: scu.196517

Bligh v Martin: ChD 1968

The paper owner of the disputed land had grazed cattle on it in winter, and denied that the defendant claiming adverse possession had been in continuous occupation.
Held: Even though the adverse possessor had received rent from the real owner, who had been then unaware of his ownership and became the tenant of the land, the adverse possessor could still successfully claim the land: ‘Both counsel pointed out that where land is subject to a tenancy, the landlord and the tenant have each, in correct legal parlance, possession of the land, though in different senses . . It seems to me that for the purpose of adverse possession of freehold land under the Limitation Act, 1939, the land should be regarded as in the possession of one or other of the two parties concerned, i.e. the landlord or the tenant; and it seems to me that subsection (3) designates the landlord as the relevant party for this purpose. On that footing, it follows that the plaintiff, having been in receipt of rent during this summer period, remained throughout the period in adverse possession of the land’.
With an intention to control the land, the adverse possessor actually believing himself or herself to be the true owner, is quite sufficient. Pennycuick J said: ‘It would, I think, be quite wrong to regard the owner of arable farmland as having been dispossessed of that land because during certain winter months he personally makes no use of it and some other person puts cattle upon it.’

Judges:

Pennycuick J

Citations:

[1968] 1 All ER 1157, [1968] 1 WLR 804

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

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 . .
Cited – Chambers v London Borough of Havering CA 20-Dec-2011
The defendant appealed against an order for him to surrender possession of land he had claimed by adverse possession. The Council was the registered proprietor. The defendant said he had used the land since 1981 for dumping of motor vehicle parts. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Limitation

Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.449373

D’Abo v Paget and Others: ChD 10 Aug 2000

Where a clause in a conveyance was not one found in precedent books of the period, it was not useful to refer to precedents from the time to show the then conveyancing practice. Nor in this case was any support to be obtained from cases involving strict settlements using different wording.

Citations:

Times 10-Aug-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.79773

Galloway v Mayor and Commonalty of London: HL 1866

Lord Cranworth LC said: ‘The principle is this, that when persons embarking in great undertakings, for the accomplishment of which those engaged in them have received authority from the Legislature to take compulsorily the lands of others, making to the latter proper compensation, the persons so authorized cannot be allowed to exercise the powers conferred on them for any collateral object; that is, for any purposes except those for which the Legislature has invested them with extraordinary powers.’

Judges:

Lord Cranworth LC

Citations:

(1866) LR 1 HL 34

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Galloway v The Mayor, Aldermen And Commons Of The City Of London 26-Apr-1864
In 1863, an Act was passed authorizing the Corporation of London to make a new street and buy certain lands (including the land of the Plaintiff) and sell such parts of them as were not required to form part of the sreet. Shortly before the passing . .
See Also – Galloway v The Corporation Of London 13-Feb-1865
In July 1862 the Corporation of London obtained Parliamentary powers for taking the Plaintiffs land for public purposes. But, prior thereto (June 1862) the Corporation had contracted to sell these lands to another company, not then empowered to . .
See Also – Galloway v The Mayor, Commonalty And Citizens Of The City Of London 2-May-1865
The Corporation of London in 1862 obtained an Act authorising them to make a new street and buy land for that purpose, with certain powers of reselling land not required for the street. About the same time a railway company obtained an Act . .
See Also – Galloway v The Mayor, Commonalty And Citizens of London HL 29-Jun-1865
A bill filed by the Plaintiff to restrain the Defendant from taking certain property of his under their statutory powers had been dismissed and the order of dismissal enrolled. The Plaintiff presented a petition of appeal to the House of Lords, and . .

Cited by:

Cited – Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Wolverhampton City Council and Another SC 12-May-2010
The appellant’s land was to be taken under compulsory purchase by the Council who wished to use it to assist Tesco in the construction of a new supermarket. Tesco promised to help fund restoration of a local listed building. Sainsbury objected an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Constitutional

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.414941

Multi-Link Leisure Developments Ltd v Lanarkshire Council: SC 17 Nov 2010

The parties disputed the effect of an option clause in a lease, and particularly whether, when fixing the price, potential for development was to be included. The clause required the ‘full market value’ to be paid. The tenant appealed.
Held: The appeal failed.
Lord Hope said: ‘The court’s task is to ascertain the intention of the parties by examining the words they used and giving them their ordinary meaning in their contractual context. It must start with what it is given by the parties themselves when it is conducting this exercise. Effect is to be given to every word, so far as possible, in the order in which they appear in the clause in question. Words should not be added which are not there, and words which are there should not be changed, taken out or moved from the place in the clause where they have been put by the parties. It may be necessary to do some of these things at a later stage to make sense of the language. But this should not be done until it has become clear that the language the parties actually used creates an ambiguity which cannot be solved otherwise.’ The Lord Ordinary had departed from his task in ignoring certain parts of the clause. The insertion of a phrase descriptive of an expected use did not exclude taking account of other possible uses.

Judges:

Lord Hope, Deputy President, Lord Rodger, Lady Hale, Lord Clarke, Sir John Dyson, SCJ

Citations:

[2010] UKSC 47, [2010] 47 EG 141, [2011] 1 All ER 175, [2011] 4 EG 102, 2011 SLT 184, UKSC 2010/0028

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Outer House – Multi Link Leisure Developments Ltd v North Lanarkshire Council SCS 31-Jul-2009
The tenant exercised an option in the lease for the purchase of the land. The parties disputed the price payable.
Held: The tenant succeeded. The full market value was to be assessed by reference only to the use of the subjects as a golf . .
Appeal from – Multi-Link Leisure Developments v North Lanarkshire Council SCS 30-Dec-2009
Landlords appealed against a ruling that the ‘full market value’ of the presents to be paid by the tenants on exercising an option contained in their lease was to be set by reference to its intended use.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The words . .
Cited – 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 – Arthur Bell and Sons v Assessor for Fife 1985
Lord Avonside said, with reference to the estimation of the annual value of subjects under the 1956 Act, that it was notorious that one must take a building according to its use at the time of the valuation. . .
Cited – Mitsui Construction Co Ltd v Attorney General of Hong Kong PC 1986
Lord Bridge said that poor drafting in a contract itself provides: ‘no reason to depart from the fundamental rule of construction of contractual documents that the intention of the parties must be ascertained from the language that they have used . .
Cited – Griffiths v WE and DT Cave Ltd CA 4-Dec-1998
The parties had entered into an option agreement, but now disputed the price to be paid on its exercise. . .
Cited – Prenn v Simmonds HL 1971
Backgroun Used to Construe Commercial Contract
Commercial contracts are to be construed in the light of all the background information which could reasonably have been expected to have been available to the parties in order to ascertain what would objectively have been understood to be their . .
Cited – Ravennavi Spa v New Century Shipbuilding Company Ltd CA 7-Feb-2007
Moore Bick LJ considered the interpretation of poorly drafted contracts and said: ‘Unless the dispute concerns a detailed document of a complex nature that can properly be assumed to have been carefully drafted to ensure that its provisions dovetail . .

Cited by:

Applied – Barts and The London NHS Trust v Verma SC 24-Apr-2013
The parties disputed the effect of the NHS terms for employment of doctors, and in particularly the provisions as to maintenance of pay grade. The doctor had become a consultant trust grade doctor in oral surgery, but was then required to retrain . .
Cited – L Batley Pet Products Ltd v North Lanarkshire Council SC 8-May-2014
The appellant was mid-landlord and the respondent the sub-tenant under a now-expired lease. The appellant had wanted repairs to be executed but told the tenant informally. The tenant argued that the lease required formal notice to create an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Contract

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.426025

Lyon v Fishmongers’ Co: HL 1876

Access to the river Thames via the plaintiff’s wharf was obstructed and this was sufficient to give rise to a successful action in private nuisance.
A riparian owner has a private law right to gain access to its frontage by boat.
Riparian rights do not depend on ownership of the soil of a stream; they attach to land in either lateral or vertical contact with a stream. The grant of a fee simple to the bed of the river may be subject to common law riparian rights
Cairns LC said:-
:’Unquestionably the owner of a wharf on the river bank has, like every other subject of the realm, the right of navigating the river as one of the public. This, however, is not a right coming to him qua owner or occupier of any lands on the bank, nor is it a right which, per se, he enjoys in a manner different from any other member of the public. But when this right of navigation is connected with an exclusive access to and from a particular wharf, it assumes a very different character. It ceases to be a right held in common with the rest of the public, for other members of the public have no access to or from the river at the particular place; and it becomes a form of enjoyment of the land, and of the river in connection with the land, the disturbance of which may be vindicated in damages by an action, or restrained by an injunction.
The taking away of the river frontage of the wharf, or the raising of an impediment along the frontage, interrupting the access between the wharf and the river, may be an injury to the public right of navigation; but it is not the less an injury to the owner of the wharf, which, in the absence of any Parliamentary authority, would be compensated by damages, or altogether prevented.’

Judges:

Lord Selborne, Lord Cairns LC

Citations:

(1876) 1 App Cas 662

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Distinguished – Tate and Lyle Industries Ltd v Greater London Council HL 24-Mar-1983
The plaintiff had constructed and used two jetties, and dredged a channel down to the Thames for their use. The Council constructed two terminals nearby, the result of which was to cause a build up of silt blocking the channel.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Nuisance

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.192597

Milebush Properties Ltd v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council: CA 17 Mar 2011

The court considered the availability, in private law proceedings between non-contracting parties, of a declaration on the meaning and effect of a planning obligation in a deed made pursuant to provisions in the planning legislation.

Judges:

Mummery, Moore-Bick, Jackson LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 270

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 106

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land, Planning

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430646

Trott v Broadland District Council: CA 17 Mar 2011

The appellant appealed against an injunction preventing him interfering in the recreational enjoyment of land. Planning permission had been granted to his company allowing a development on condition that land adjacent to the buildings should be left open. He was said to have enclosed part of it as a garden.

Judges:

Sullivan LJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 301

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 187B

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning, Land

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430649

Bank of Scotland v Pereira and Others: CA 9 Mar 2011

The mortgagor sought to appeal against a mortgagee’s possession order. The Court of Appeal considered the interaction between an application under CPR rule 39.3 to set aside a default judgment and an application for permission to appeal under CPR Pt 52.
Held: The dismissal of an application under CPR Rule 39.3 does not, of itself, give rise to an issue estoppel so as to preclude an appeal from the judgment which has not been set aside; though the fact that an application under CPR rule 39.3 has failed is a weighty, though not conclusive, consideration in determining an application for permission to adduce fresh evidence on appeal or for a retrial.
Lord Neuberger said: ‘In the great majority of cases, a judge hearing such an application should not allow oral evidence on the basis that he or she can properly (i) accept all the factual evidence given by the applicant, and allow the application, (ii) dismiss the application even on the assumption that all the applicant’s evidence is true, (iii) allow the application even though of the view that some of the applicant’s evidence is or may be untrue, or (iv) reject some (or even all) of the applicant’s evidence on the basis that it is inconsistent or inherently improbable, and accordingly dismiss the application.’

Judges:

Lord Neuberger MR, Lloyd and Gross LJJ

Citations:

[2011] 11 EG 102 (CS), [2011] 1 WLR 2391, [2011] EWCA Civ 241

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 39.3 52

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Hardy and Another v Haselden and Others CA 29-Nov-2011
The claimants had taken up occupation of a farm under an informal arrangement which they now said amounted to a tenancy for ther lives. The freeholder’s, personal representatives of the original grantors, appealed against a declaration accordingly. . .
Cited – WXY v Gewanter and Another QBD 30-May-2012
The claimant had obtained an injunction to restrain publication of what was private information. The third defendant now applied to set aside the judgment, saying that their application for an adjournment had been wrongly refused. He said that he . .
Cited – Kenny and Others v Abubaker and Others CA 23-Oct-2012
The defendant landlord sought to appeal against an order that he pay to the respondent tenants a penalty under the 2004 Act of three times the tenancy deposit. The court was now asked whether there was has any right to have set aside a judgment . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430464

Elias v George Sahely and Co (Barbados) Ltd: PC 1982

(Barbados) The parties entered into an oral agreement for the sale of land to the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s solicitor then wrote to the defendant’s solicitor confirming the oral agreement and setting out its terms. He enclosed a cheque for 10 percent of the agreed price describing it as a deposit which he directed should be held by the defendant’s solicitor as stakeholder pending completion of the contract of sale. The defendant’s solicitor signed and sent a receipt which stated that he had received the money as deposit for the property ‘agreed to be sold’ by the defendant to the plaintiff. The Board was asked whether the letter enclosing the deposit together with the receipt for the deposit constituted sufficient memorandum for the purposes of the Statute of Frauds given that no written contract was signed by the parties.
Held: Signature by an agent, for example one party’s solicitor will bind that party if the agent has authority to sign.

Judges:

Scarman, Simon of Glaisdale, Bridge of Harwich, Brandon of Oakbrook LL

Citations:

[1983] 1 AC 646, [1982] 3 All ER 801, [1982] 3 WLR 956, [1983-84] ANZ Conv R 104, [1982] UKPC 31

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Approved – Stokes v Whicher 1920
Russell J said: ‘if you can spell out of the document a reference in it to some other transaction, you are at liberty to give evidence as to what that other transaction is, and, if that other transaction contains all the terms and writing, then you . .
Approved – Timmins v Moreland Street Property Co Ltd CA 1958
The Court considered the effect of a note or memorandum evidencing the sale of a property where it was described as ‘6,8 and 41, Boundary Street, Shoreditch (freehold).’ It was sought to connect the signature on a purchaser’s deposit cheque with an . .

Cited by:

Cited – 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 . .
Mentioned – 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: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430061

Meeruppe Sumanatissa Terunnanse v Warakapitiye Pangnananda Terunnanse: PC 23 Jan 1968

Ceylon – A bare licence terminates on the transfer of the licensor’s own title.

Judges:

Lord Devlin

Citations:

[1968] UKPC 3, [1968] AC 1086

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Totton and Eling Town Council v Caunter and Another ChD 11-Jun-2008
The council appealed against an award by the adjudicator of title by adverse possession in favour of the respondents.
Held: The appeal succeeded. On any sensible analysis from the Council’s perspective, the Caunters were entitled to remain in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Land

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.429941

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 unable to comply with a requirement of the contract and purported to rescind and required the defendants to vacate. The defendants waived compliance and sought completion. The buyers now appealed against a finding that the clause had not solely been for their benefit, and that they could not therefore waive its compliance.
Held: The contract had been validly terminated, and the appeal failed: ‘The fact that a contract . . provides . . that completion is to take place a stated number of days after the vendor has shown that he has a particular title to the land in question does not mean that the purchaser cannot waive the vendor’s obligation to show that title merely because to do so ‘will leave the date for completion in the air’ if by that is meant either that the stipulation in question cannot be waived or, if it were otherwise to be waived, the contract will cease to be enforceable.’

Judges:

Sir William Blackburne

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 326 (Ch), [2011] 23 EG 88

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

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 – 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 . .
Cited – Joyce Chaitlal and Ganga Persad Chaitlal (in substitution for Kanhai Mahase, deceased) Dhanierami Jaglal and Maharani Jaglal v Chanderlal Ramlal PC 5-Feb-2003
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) The purchaser sought specific performance of an open contract for the sale of land.
Held: If and in so far as a contract for the sale of land does not specify a time for completion, . .
Cited – Hawker v Vickers 1991
(New Zealand Court of Appeal) The court considered the ability of a party to waive compliance with a condition, saying: ‘there is nothing inconsistent in providing expressly or by necessary implication for unilateral waiver of a condition up to a . .
Cited – Globe Holdings Ltd v Floratos 1998
(New Zealand Court of Appeal) A block of apartments was sold with possession to be given on ‘the first Friday three months after confirmation’. Special conditions required a sub-divisional consent to be obtained within 60 days of acceptance, and . .
Cited – Spiro v Glencrown Properties Ltd and Another ChD 1991
The court considered the nature of an option to buy land. Hoffman J said: ‘The granting of the option imposes no obligation upon the purchaser and an obligation upon the vendor which is contingent upon the exercise of the option. When the option is . .
Cited – Sudbrook Trading Estate Ltd v Eggleton HL 1982
The grantors of an option, which contained a machinery for fixing the price, had refused to appoint a valuer and that made it impossible for the contractual machinery for the valuation of the option price to work. The House of Lords held that the . .
Cited – Yewbelle Ltd v London Green Developments Ltd, Knightsbridge Green Limited ChD 8-Dec-2006
The court considered what were the obligations undertaken by a party contracting to use reasonable endeavours.
Held: The question is one of substance, not form, to be determined objectively. Lewison J said: ‘the essence of the obligation . .
Cited – Akzo Nobel UK Ltd v Arista Tubes Ltd CA 29-Jan-2010
The claimant appealed against rejection of its claim for specific performance of agreements by the defendant to take underleases of factory space. The landlord’s consent was needed, both to the grant of the underleases to Arista and also to an . .
Cited – Yewbelle Ltd v London Green Developments Ltd and Another CA 23-May-2007
The parties had entered into a contract for the development of land. Two circumstances operated to make it difficult or impossible, and the court was asked whether the contract was frustrated. The vendor was obliged to use all reasonable endeavours . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Land

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.429734

Legal Services Commission v Pugh (Charges and Charging Orders): LRA 21 Dec 2007

LRA Claimant with legal aid obtains a partial right of way to her property in settlement of a dispute as to her rights of access. Legal Services Commission not entitled to charge over her property under section 10(7) of the Access to Justice Act 1999.

Citations:

[2007] EWLandRA 2006 – 1672

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Access to Justice Act 1999 10(7)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land, Legal Aid

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.429581

Hopton v Gwilliam, and Gwilliam (Easements): LRA 25 Feb 2008

LRA Application to register benefit of right of way – necessity – implied reservation – whether right of way at all times and for all purposes – Wheeldon v Burrows (1879) 12 Ch D 31; In Re Webb’s Lease [1951] 1 Ch 808;Pwllbach Colliery Company Ltd v Woodman [1915] 1 AC 634 – Peckham v Ellison (1999) 77 PandCR D 27; Corporation of London v Riggs (188) 13 Ch D 798; Sweet v Sommer [2004] EWHC 1504; Stafford v Lee (1992) 65 PandCR 172;Mills v Silver (1991) Ch 271 – Chief Land Registrar ordered to give effect to application in modified terms

Citations:

[2008] EWLandRA 2006 – 0771

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.429585

Ramzan v Brookwide Ltd: ChD 8 Oct 2010

The claimant owned a flying freehold room butting into the defendant’s property. Whilst the claimant’s property was unoccupied, the defendant broke through into the room, blocked off the door to the claimant’s property, and included the room in the flat it then let. The case was transferred to the High court to consider issues of principle on the award of damages, including exemplary damages.
Held: Throughout the period, the defendant had held the property in trust for the claimant, and profits fell to be awarded for trespass, denial of title, an account of profits exemplary damages. The court decided to award: ‘mesne profits, representing the actual loss to the Claimant, on the basis of applying an annual percentage of 4.5% to the agreed capital value of the expropriated property’.

Judges:

Geraldine Andrews QC J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 2453 (Ch), [2011] 2 All ER 38

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Transferred from – Ramzan v Agra Ltd; Ramzan v Brookwide Limited Misc 4-Apr-2008
(Birmingham County Court) The parties disputed ownership of a room between their adjoining properties, which incuded a flying freehold. The defendant was said to have broken through into the room, and then blocked off the previous door into the . .
Cited – Rookes v Barnard (No 1) HL 21-Jan-1964
The court set down the conditions for the award of exemplary damages. There are two categories. The first is where there has been oppressive or arbitrary conduct by a defendant. Cases in the second category are those in which the defendant’s conduct . .
Cited – Horsford v Bird and others PC 17-Jan-2006
(Antigua and Barbuda) The Board was asked as to the damages to be awarded after the defendant had built a wall which encroached on the claimant’s land and appropriated some 455 square feet. Aggravated damages had been awarded. The court was asked . .
Cited – Parabola Investments Ltd and Others v Browallia Cal Ltd and Others CA 5-May-2010
The second defendant appealed against the level of damages awarded against him after he was found guilty of a fraud on the claimant, saying that the loss of profits element was unproven.
Held: The appeal failed. Where a claimant’s investment . .
Cited – Swordheath Properties Ltd v Tabet CA 1979
The amount of damages payable by a trespasser on land is ordinarily the letting value of the premises. Megaw LJ said: ‘It appears to me to be clear, both as a matter of principle and of authority, that in a case of this sort the plaintiff, when he . .
Cited – Stadium Capital Holdings (No 2) Ltd v St Marylebone Property Company Plc Clear Channel UK Ltd CA 15-Jul-2010
The court considered a trespass to the claimant’s airspace by the erection of a commercial advertising hoarding without permission. It had generated significant revenue for the trespasser. The trial judge had refused a very late application by the . .
Cited – Ministry of Defence v Ashman and Another CA 3-May-1993
A person who has profited from trespassing on someone else’s land may be ordered to pay what are sometimes called ‘restitutionary damages’ to the landowner. Mesne profits can be calculated as the cost of alternative Local Authority Housing. Kennedy . .
Cited – Blomley v Ryan 28-Mar-1956
(High Court of Australia) Equity – Contract for sale and purchase of grazing property – Suit for specific performance brought by purchaser – Vendor aged and affected by long bout of rum drinking – Claim to set aside contract – Unconscionable bargain . .
Cited – Multiservice Bookbinding Ltd v Marden ChD 1978
To have a transaction set aside as a harsh and unconscionable bargain, a party would have to show not only that the terms of the transaction were harsh or oppressive, but also moral unfairness. Browne-Wilkinson J said: ‘In my judgment a bargain . .
Cited – Alec Lobb (Garages) Ltd v Total Oil Ltd QBD 1983
To establish that a contract was unconscionable, a party had to have made an unconscientious use of its superior position or superior bargaining power to the detriment of someone suffering from some special disability or disadvantage. This weakness . .
Cited – Design Progression Limited v Thurloe Properties Limited ChD 25-Feb-2004
The tenant applied for a licence to assign. The landlord failed to reply, anticipating that delay would allow it to generate a better lease renewal.
Held: The delay was unreasonable and a breach of the landlord’s statutory duty, and was an act . .

Cited by:

At first instance – Ramzan v Brookwide Ltd (Ancillary Matters) CA 19-Aug-2011
Costs award after principal judgment . .
Appeal from – Ramzan v Brookwide Ltd CA 19-Aug-2011
The defendant had broken through into a neighbour’s flying freehold room, closed it off, and then included it in its own premises for let. It now appealed against the quantum of damages awarded. The judge had found the actions deliberate and with a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Land

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.425257

EDF Energy Networks (EPN) Plc v BOH Ltd and Others: ChD 4 Dec 2009

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 3193 (Ch), [2009] 49 EG 71, [2010] L and TR 14, [2010] 2 P and CR 3

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Land

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.383826

Rennie v Westbury Homes (Holdings) Ltd: ChD 7 Feb 2007

The parties had entered into an option agreement for development of land. The developer purported to exercise an option extendng the applicable period, but having accepted the funds, the land owner denied that it had been validly exercised.
Held: The notice was valid. Anyone reading it would understand it as the exercise of the option agreement. No specific form of words was required by the agreement. Though the deposit payable was paid late, this was only by a few hours, and time was not of the essence for this purpose.

Judges:

Henderson J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 164 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Nunes v Davies Laing and Dick Limited 1985
The court set out the test for a valid counter-notice: ‘namely that the counternotice should be in terms which are sufficiently clear to bring home to the ordinary landlord that the tenant is purporting to exercise his right . . ‘ . .
Cited – Lancecrest Limited v Dr Ganiyu Asiwaju CA 11-Feb-2005
Rent review clause – whether a notice served by a landlord (a ‘trigger notice’) purportedly implementing a rent review was valid, notwithstanding the fact that it was served late; and if the landlord’s trigger notice was valid, whether the tenant . .
Cited – Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Assurance HL 21-May-1997
Minor Irregularity in Break Notice Not Fatal
Leases contained clauses allowing the tenant to break the lease by serving not less than six months notice to expire on the third anniversary of the commencement date of the term of the lease. The tenant gave notice to determine the leases on 12th . .

Cited by:

Cited – The Prudential Assurance Company Ltd v Ayres and Grew ChD 3-Apr-2007
The defendants argued that they were not liable as guarantors under an Authorised Guarantee Agreement for a lease when the assignee tenant had become insolvent.
Held: The guarantors were liable provided that the extent of the claim did not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Land

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.248388

Courtney v Corp Ltd: CA 1 Mar 2006

The claimants sought to enforce an offer of finance to support a land purchase. The defendants argued that the offer failed to meet the characteristics required under section 2 of the 1989 Act.
Held: The judge had been correct to say that the appellant had not effectively incorporated the full agreement.

Judges:

Arden LJ

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 518

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Firstpost Homes Ltd v Johnson and Others CA 14-Aug-1995
The parties disputed whether a contract had been made. The proposed contract was contained in a letter and a plan but only the plan was signed by both parties.
Held: The requirements of Section 2 had not been satisfied because it was the . .
Cited – McCausland and Another v Duncan Lawrie Ltd and Another CA 18-Jun-1996
The parties entered into a written contract for the sale of land which, in error, provided for completion on a Sunday. The parties varied the date to the Friday but did not execute a new contract which would comply with section 2(1) of the 1989 Act. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Contract

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.241566

Stack v Dowden: CA 13 Jul 2005

The parties purchased a property together. The transfer contained a survivorship restriction but no declaration of the beneficial interests. The judge had held the property to be held as tenants in commn on equal shares.
Held: In a case where the property has been transferred into joint names, it can usually be taken for granted that each was intended to have some beneficial interest in the property. Ms Dowden’s appeal succeeded, and her interest was declared to be 65% (though had she asked she might have got more). Discussing the case law on trusts of family homes: ‘To the detached observer, the result may seem like a witch’s brew, into which various esoteric ingredients have been stirred over the years, and in which different ideas bubble to the surface at different times. They include implied trust, constructive trust, resulting trust, presumption of advancement, proprietary estoppel, unjust enrichment, and so on. These ideas are likely to mean nothing to laymen, and often little more to the lawyers who use them. ‘ (Lord Justice Carnwath)

Judges:

Chadwick LJ, Varnwath LJ

Citations:

[2006] 1 FLR 254, [2005] EWCA Civ 857

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 14

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Goodman v Gallant CA 30-Oct-1985
The court reviewed the conflicting authorities with regard to the creation of trusts and held that the overwhelming preponderance of authority was that, in the absence of any claim for rectification or rescission, provisions in a conveyance . .
Cited – Oxley v Hiscock CA 6-May-2004
The parties were not married, but had brought together their resources to purchase a home in the name of one of them. Nothing had been said about the respective shares on which the property was to be held.
Held: The shares were to be assessed . .
Cited – Huntingford v Hobbs CA 1-Mar-1992
The parties lived together in a property transferred to the woman after her divorce. That house was sold and the defendant contributed the capital. There was a joint mortgage, but the plaintiff alone had an income from which to make payments. The . .
Cited – Pettitt v Pettitt HL 23-Apr-1969
A husband and wife disputed ownership of the matrimonial home in the context of the presumption of advancement.
Lord Reid said: ‘These considerations have largely lost their force under present conditions, and, unless the law has lost its . .
Cited – Re Gorman ChD 1990
The matrimonial home was in the joint names of husband and wife. After the marriage broke down, the husband left the home, and the wife discharged all mortgage payments (both capital and interest). The husband was adjudicated bankrupt. The wife . .
Cited – Passee v Passee 1988
. .
Cited – Walker v Hall CA 1984
The court considered the way of distributing property purchased by an unmarried couple: ‘When such a relationship comes to an end, just as with many divorced couples, there are likely to be disputes about the distribution of shared property. How are . .
Cited – Young v Young 1984
. .
Cited – Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset HL 29-Mar-1990
The house had been bought during the marriage but in the husband’s sole name. The plaintiff’s charge secured the husband’s overdraft. The bank issued possession proceedings. Mr Rosset had left, but Mrs Rosset claimed, as against the bank an interest . .
Cited – Springette v Defoe CA 1-Mar-1992
Property was purchased in joint names, but with no express declaration of the beneficial interests. The couple had lived together for a short time as joint tenants of the local authority. They were able to purchase at a substantial discount from the . .
Cited – Harwood v Harwood CA 1991
The court rejected the argument that declaring in a transfer of land that the survivor ‘can give a valid receipt for capital money arising on a disposition of the land’ in itself amounts to an express declaration of a beneficial joint tenancy. . .
Cited – Mortgage Corporation Ltd v Shaire and Another ChD 25-Feb-2000
The claimant had an equitable charge over the property, and sought a possession order after failures to keep up repayments. The order was sought under the Act, and the claimants asserted that the conditions for the grant of possession were . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Stack v Dowden HL 25-Apr-2007
The parties had cohabited for a long time, in a home bought by Ms Dowden. After the breakdown of the relationship, Mr Stack claimed an equal interest in the second family home, which they had bought in joint names. The House was asked whether, when . .
Cited – Fowler v Barron CA 23-Apr-2008
The parties had lived together for many years but without marrying. The house had been put in joint names, but without specific advice on the issue or any express declaration of trust. In practice Mr Barron made the direct payments for the house and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Trusts, Land

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.228590

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 covenants remained in effect. The University sought their discharge.
Held: The Borough had owned the dominant and servient lands for different statutory purposes (for public education and for housing), and therefore the covenants had not been discharged. ‘there is no extinguishment of restrictive covenants when the dominant and servient properties are held by the same trustee on distinct trusts.’ On a true construction of the particular conveyance however, the land could be sold free of the restrictive covenants, but this would in turn bring into effect the authority’s right of pre-emption. If the right was exercised, the price would be as to the land free of the covenants.

Judges:

Lightman J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 2710 (Ch), Times 03-Jan-2005, [2005] 3 All ER 398, [2005] Ch 354

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 78 84(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – University of East London Higher Education Corporation v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham and others ChD 14-Dec-2004
The parties had litigated the sale of land free of restrictive covenants.
Held: The rule that a party was entilted to its costs of defending an action under the Act for the discharge of a covenant at least as far as was necessary for it to . .
Cited – Tulk v Moxhay 22-Dec-1848
Purchaser with notice bound in Equity
A, being seised of the centre garden and some houses in Leicester Square, conveyed the garden to B in fee, and B covenanted for himself and his assigns to keep the garden unbuilt upon.
Held: A purchaser from B, with notice of the covenant, was . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Newton Abbot Co-operative Society Ltd v Williamson and Treadgold Ltd ChD 1952
A restrictive covenant taken for the protection of a business carried on on land owned by the covenantee was a covenant taken for the benefit of land; in other words a property interest. In this context the word ‘assign’ was apposite to an . .
Cited – Renals v Cowlishaw 1879
The word ‘assigns’ was used to denote the successors in title to the land both of the original restrictive covenantor and of the original covenantee.
Held: this was insufficient to enable a subsequent owner of the Mill Hill estate who did not . .
Cited – Renals v Cowlishaw CA 2-Jan-1879
The vendors were trustees for sale of a mansion-house and property, known as the Mill Hill estate, and some adjoining pieces of land and sold two of the adjoining pieces in 1845. The conveyance contained a covenant by the purchaser with the vendors, . .
Cited – Re Ecclesiastical Commissioner’s Conveyance 1936
. .
Cited – Chambers v Randell 1923
Where there is no express annexation of the benefit of a covenant the Court will usually regard the covenant as imposed simply to protect the covenantee while he or she holds the land, or to enable the covenantee to dispose of the land, together . .
Cited – Rogers v Hosegood ChD 1900
The vendors were partners in Cubitt and Co, a well-known firm of builders who had laid out land in Palace Gate, Kensington in building plots suitable for large private houses. In 1869 they twice sold and conveyed plots to the Duke of Bedford subject . .
Cited – Formby v Baker 1903
The term ‘successors and assigns’ was used in case of covenants given by limited companies to ensure that the covenants were not limited to being personal obligations of the company. . .
Cited – Chambers v Kingham 1878
The court was asked whether a lease vested in an administrator in his own right merged in the reversion held by him as administrator.
Held: ‘mergers are odious in equity and never allowed unless for special reason’. There was no merger because . .
Cited – Crest Nicholson Residential (South) Ltd v McAllister CA 1-Apr-2004
Land had been purchased which was subject to a restrictive covenant. The papers did not disclose the precise extent of the dominant land, the land which benefitted from the restriction.
Held: The land having the benefit of a covenant had to be . .
Cited – Mander v Falcke 1891
A restrictive covenant is enforceable against an occupier of the land. It could be a breach to use an access for land beyond that originally envisaged. . .
Cited – Texaco Antilles Ltd v Kernochan HL 1972
The court considered the doctrine of unity of seisin of land as it affected restrictive covenants: ‘if the restrictions in question exist simply for the benefit of two adjoining premises [and not as part of a building scheme] and both those . .
Cited – Post Investments Pty Ltd v Wilson 1-Feb-1990
(New South Wales) The court considered the situation where both the dominant and servient lands affected by a restricive covenant came into common ownership. There must be complete unity not merely of ownership, but also of possession. The law has . .
Cited – Bromley London Borough Council v Greater London Council HL 17-Dec-1981
Councillors’ Duties replace Election Promises
Bromley complained of a supplementary precept issued by the respondent to implement a commitment, contained in an election manifesto for the election in May 1979, upon which the majority on the GLC had been elected.
Held: In making choices of . .
Cited – Regina v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council, ex parte Chetnik Developments Limited HL 1988
The House was asked whether a rating authority could refuse to repay rates which had been paid by mistake.
Held: ‘Parliament must have intended the rating authorities to act in the same high principled way expected by the court of its own . .

Cited by:

See Also – University of East London Higher Education Corporation v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham and others ChD 14-Dec-2004
The parties had litigated the sale of land free of restrictive covenants.
Held: The rule that a party was entilted to its costs of defending an action under the Act for the discharge of a covenant at least as far as was necessary for it to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.220167

UCB Corporate Services Limited v Williams: CA 2 May 2002

The wife of a borrower sought to defend a claim for possession of the property by the chargor. She claimed that he signature had been obtained by an equitable fraud.
Held: Undue influence occurred when improper means of persuasion were used to procure the complainant’s consent such that the consent ought not fairly to be treated as the expression of the complainant’s free will. Equity proceeded on the basis that there was no consent. Such would be enough to set aside the transaction as against the wrongdoer, and the lender was fixed with notice of that right. There was no need for the wife to establish that but for the trick, she would not have signed.

Judges:

Lord Justice Peter Gibson

Citations:

Times 27-May-2002, Gazette 13-Jun-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 555

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – CIBC Mortgages Plc v Pitt and Another HL 21-Oct-1993
Mrs Pitt resisted an order for possession of the house saying that she had signed the mortgage only after misrepresentations by and the undue infuence of her husband who was acting as the bank’s agent.
Held: A bank was not put on enquiry as to . .
Cited – Downs v Chappell; Downs v Stephenson Smart (a Firm) CA 1996
The plaintiff purchased a book shop. He claimed that in doing so he had relied upon the accounts prepared and signed off by the respective defendants.
Held: The judge had been wrong by testing what would have been the true figures as against . .

Cited by:

Cited – Yorkshire Bank Plc v Tinsley CA 25-Jun-2004
The defendant’s husband had charged the matrimonial home on several occasions to the claimant. It was found that the first charges were affected by undue influence and could not be enforced. The defendant argued that the last charge which replaced . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Equity, Undue Influence

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.170225

Llewellyn and Another v Lorey and Another: CA 3 Feb 2011

The parties disputed whether a right of way was exerciseable for commercial as well as private purposes.
Held: The judge had made a finding as to use which was not supported by the evidence before him.

Judges:

Thorpe, Lloyd, Patten LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 37

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Hollins v Verney CA 1884
A claim for a presumption of a lost modern grant must include an assertion that the enjoyment of the carriageway was continuous or uninterrupted. Lindley LJ said: ‘It is difficult, if not impossible, to enunciate a principle which will reconcile all . .
Cited – Williams and Another v Sandy Lane (Chester) Ltd CA 15-Dec-2006
The servient owner granted a lease of his land without first seeking to prevent use of the right of way by the dominant owner.
Held: The servient owner could not now rely on the fact of the lease to say that he had been disabled from . .
Cited – Pugh v Savage CA 14-Jan-1970
The enjoyment of an easement by a succession of tenants may be sufficient to create a right by prescription for the landlord. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428533

Streeter v Trustees of Streeter Will Trust: UTTC 4 Jan 2011

COMPENSATION – compulsory purchase – preliminary issue – motorway service area – planning permission for hotel development within MSA – whether this was additional development entitling claimant to further compensation – held it was not – Land Compensation Act ss 23, 29.

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 1 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428146

East Cheshire Council, Re Heawood Hall Cottage: UTTC 14 Jan 2011

UTTC TRIBUNALS, COURTS AND ENFORCEMENT ACT 2007
COMPENSATION – compulsory purchase – value of land taken – severance and injurious affection – valuation – comparables – disturbance – Land Compensation Act 1961 section 5, rules (2) and (6); Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 section 7 – compensation determined at pounds 544,400

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 18 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Land Compensation Act 1961 5, Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 7

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428144

Perlman v Rayden, Rayden: ChD 7 Oct 2004

The parties had become embroiled in a particularly bitter boundary dispute. The claimants in particular sought aggravated damages saying that the defendants had misled them in securing agreement to works.
Held: Aggravated damages were awarded. The defendant had continued to deny any wrongdoing when he knew full well that his building was a trespass. Patten J said: ‘I have rejected the allegation that the Raydens sought from the start to mislead the Perlmans and that they always intended to carry out their works regardless of the Perlmans’ rights . . I do, however, accept that the Raydens did decide to press ahead with the extension regardless of the terms of the planning permission. What is in dispute is whether and to what extent they were also aware that their extension would impinge on the Claimant’s property and his rights of access in the way that it did. It is, I think, important to bear in mind that Mr. Perlman is not entitled to damages for a breach by the Raydens of planning control. His cause of action is one in nuisance or trespass. There is no clear evidence that the Raydens knew in advance how their builders intended to construct the extension, any more than they planned the delivery of the dormer window via the roadway. But these were the Raydens’ builders and they must, in my judgment, take responsibility for their actions. It also seems to me unlikely that Mr. Rayden was not told by Mr. Izod or the builders at least something about the attempts that were being made to deal with the level of the flank wall. Neither Mr. Nixon nor anyone from the builders has been called to explain why they acted in the way they did. What is, I think, particularly important and significant is that when the queries were raised about the construction of the flank wall, Mr. Rayden continued to deny any wrongdoing, even at a time when he must have known what the true position was and indeed was prepared to admit it to the planning authority. This is a case where I can, I think, properly make an award of aggravated damages, but in doing so I am entitled to take into account the fact that the extension has now been demolished, at considerable cost to the Raydens, and my declaration about the gap to be left ought to prevent problems of this kind occurring in the future . .’

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Patten

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 2192 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Lawrence and Another v Fen Tigers Ltd and Others QBD 4-Mar-2011
The claimants had complained that motor-cycle and other racing activities on neighbouring lands were a noise nuisance, but the court also considered that agents of the defendants had sought to intimidate the claimants into not pursuing their action. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Damages

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.216003

Sweet and Another v Sommer and Another: ChD 25 Jun 2004

Part of land had been sold off. By oversight no right of way had been taken in favour of the retained land. The dominant owner argued that by demolition of a building a means of access could be found and that therefore no right of way by necessity arose.
Held: It was clearly envisaged by all parties that the building was not to be demolished. Ther was no direct authority on the issue, but the doctrine of necessity had to be read in the context of the actual situation. An implied reservation of the right of way existed.

Judges:

Hart J

Citations:

Times 25-Aug-2004, [2004] EWHC 1504 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Osborn v Wise 1837
Easement of necessity for use arising after grant but predictable. . .
Cited – Manjang v Drammeh PC 1990
The owner of a strip of land alongside the River Gambia and which was ‘regularly and without inconvenience’ accessed by his customers from the river failed in a contention that his land was ‘landlocked’ so as to give him a way of necessity over . .
Cited – Corporation of London v Riggs CA 1880
The court considered whether a right of way of necessity had been granted: ‘the real question I have to decide is this – whether, on a grant of land wholly surrounding a close, the implied grant, or re grant, of a right of way by the grantee to the . .
Cited – Serff v Acton Local Board ChD 1886
A right of way of necessity may be implied for purposes contemplated at the date of the grant but not yet implemented. . .
Cited – MRA Engineering Ltd v Trimster Co Ltd CA 1987
The conveyancing process had left a house in Dorking without any access to the public highway otherwise than by public footpaths to its side and rear. The question was whether a vehicular way over land which had been conveyed to the defendants had . .
Cited – Brown v Allabastor 1887
. .
Cited – Celsteel Ltd v Alton House Holdings Ltd ChD 1985
An equitable easement (a right of way), which was not protected by any entry on the register, was a right openly exercised and enjoyed as appurtenant, in this case to a garage, and it adversely affected registered land as an overriding interest. The . .
Cited – Union Lighterage Company v London Graving Dock Company CA 1902
Stirling LJ said: ‘in my opinion an easement of necessity means an easement without which the property retained cannot be used at all, and not one merely necessary to the reasonable enjoyment of that property.’
Romer LJ said that enjoyment of a . .
Cited – Nickerson v Barraclough (1) ChD 1980
The court considered an assertion that a right of necessity was implied into a deed.
Held: ‘In the present case the land conveyed was plainly intended to be used for building purposes, and of course it plainly needed access for building . .
Cited – Barry v Hasseldine 1952
The grantee’s land was surrounded partly by land of the vendor, and partly by that of other parties, including a disused airfield owned by a third party. For some time following the grant they had been able to obtain access over the airfield by . .
Cited – St Edmondsbury and Ipswich Diocesan Board of Finance v Clark (No 2) ChD 1975
A reservation contained In a conveyance must be construed in the context of the deed as a whole, and in the light of the surrounding circumstances.
Held: Sir John Pennycuick said: ‘Mr Vinelott contended that the proper method of construction . .
Cited – E R Ives Investments Ltd v High CA 14-Dec-1966
One exception to the requirement that an easement must be granted by a deed is that if permission to enjoy a right, capable of constituting an easement, is given by the landowner in terms likely to lead, and that do lead, the beneficiary of the . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Sommer and Another v Sweet and Another CA 10-Mar-2005
The claimants had sought entry into theirs and their neighbour’s registered land titles of entries to acknowledge their rights of way. The neighbours appealed the finding of a right of way of necessity and by proprietary estoppel, and an order for . .
Cited – Adealon International Proprietary Ltd v London Borough of Merton ChD 12-Apr-2006
The claimant had bought land originally bought from the defendant, but after a long series of events, the only available access was over the retained land. It sought a right of way of necessity.
Held: At the time of the grant, other access was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.200643

Keelwalk Properties Ltd v Betty Waller and Another: CA 30 Jul 2002

The claimant appealed refusal of its claim for possession against the respondents, occupiers of single-storey wooden bungalows on its land. The leases had expired. The defendants said the structures were their own, and not subject to the lease, and an order would infringe their human rights. They also claimed an estoppel based on reassurances given by a former landowner. The new landowner would only grant new leases at a higher rent. The bungalows were not occupied as residences.
Held: A long-standing practice cannot in itself justify an expectation that the practice will continue in perpetuity. No estoppel arose. The Human Rights claim had not been pursued, and the owners were not secure tenants entitled to new leases. The appeal was granted.

Judges:

The Vice-Chancellor, Lord Justice Jonathan Parker, Lord Justice Rix

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 1076, [2002] 3 EGLR 79

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Elitestone Ltd v Morris and Another HL 1-May-1997
The plaintiff acquired land on which 27 chalets were erected. They served notice to quit so that the site could be developed. The defendants argued that they had residential tenancies with protection under the Rent Act 1977.
Held: The tenants’ . .
Cited – In re Basham dec’d; Basham v Basham 1986
The claimant and her husband had helped her mother and her stepfather throughout the claimant’s adult life. She received no remuneration but understood that she would inherit her stepfather’s property when he died. After her mother’s death and until . .

Cited by:

Cited – Parker v Parker ChD 24-Jul-2003
Lord Macclesfield claimed a right to occupy a castle. The owners claimed that he had only a mere tenancy at will. The exact rooms in the castle which had been occupied had varied over time.
Held: The applicant was entitled to reasonable . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Estoppel

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.174436

Roxlena Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Cumbria County Council: CA 9 Oct 2019

How should a surveying authority approach the evidence said to justify its making an order to add a footpath to its definitive map and statement of public rights of way under section 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981?

Judges:

Lord Justice Simon, Lord Justice Simon
Lord Justice Lindblom
and
Lord Justice Irwin, Lord Justice Lindblom and Lord Justice Irwin

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Civ 1639

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 53

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.642681

Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Ltd v Compton Beauchamp Estates Ltd: CA 22 Oct 2019

‘The main issue on this appeal is whether the Upper Tribunal (the ‘UT’) has jurisdiction to require a freeholder who is not in occupation of land to confer rights under the Electronic Communications Code (‘the Code’) on an operator, at a time when there is another operator in occupation of the land exercising code rights. The UT held that it had no such jurisdiction.’

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Civ 1755

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land, Utilities

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.642665

Whitworth v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: CA 20 Dec 2010

The claimants challenged the making of an order confirming a public right of way over their farmland.
Held: Where an order is subject to confirmation by the Secretary of State, the quashing of the ‘order’ relates to the original order as made by the authority, rather than simply to its confirmation by the Minister, with the result that everything following from that action is also invalidated, regardless of whether it had any relevance to the legal defect.

Judges:

Maurice Kay, Carnwath, Tomlinson LLJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 1468

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Walton v The Scottish Ministers SC 17-Oct-2012
The appellant, former chair of a road activist group, challenged certain roads orders saying that the respondent had not carried out the required environmental assessment. His claim was that the road had been adopted without the consultation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.427381

Leeds Group Plc v Leeds City Council: CA 20 Dec 2010

The claimant appealed against refusal of its challenge to an order declaring part its land to be a town or village green.
Held: The term ‘neighbourhood within any locality’ in section 22(1A) can mean a singular neighbourhood or more than one neighbourhood.
Sullivan LJ, dissenting mentioned the absurdity of the situation in a case such as this where a Town or Village Green between two neighbourhoods could not be registered: ‘Like the judge, I can see no logical reason why ‘any neighbourhood’ in sub-s 22(1A) should not include two or more neighbourhoods. There is nothing in the language of the subsection to suggest that ‘any neighbourhood’ must mean only one neighbourhood. The fact that Parliament chose to retain the ‘Common Law baggage’ associated with ‘locality’ in limb (i) of the subsection is not a reason to infer that it intended that all aspects of the common law locality rule were to be grafted onto the new concept of ‘neighbourhood within a locality’ in limb (ii). Lord Hoffmann’s observations in para 27 of the Oxfordshire case were obiter, but they are, at the very least, persuasive. Lord Rodger and Lord Walker agreed with his speech (paras 114 and 124). If the amendment to s 22(1) was intended to abolish technicalities, and was obviously drafted with a deliberate imprecision to that end, it would be contrary to Parliament’s intention to confine ‘any neighbourhood within a locality’ to only one neighbourhood within a locality. By its very nature a locality is likely to contain a number of neighbourhoods. Mr Laurence submitted that this approach to sub-s 22(1A) would open the door to registration too wide, to the disadvantage of landowners. However, Parliament while abolishing technicalities in the limb (ii) of Class C, also made it clear that in respect of both limbs only user by a significant number of the inhabitants of the locality, neighbourhood or neighbourhoods, as the case may be, will suffice.’
Arden LJ said: ‘There is no necessary link between a locality (an administrative area) and a neighbourhood. A neighbourhood is not a sub-division of a locality. This may be a further point that led Lord Hoffmann to his conclusion that it is unlikely that Parliament intended a neighbourhood to be wholly within a single locality. By parity of reasoning with the various points that Lord Hoffmann made, since it is common knowledge that many villages and towns have more than one neighbourhood, it is in my judgment unlikely without some clear indication to that effect that Parliament intended that no Class C TVG should be registered if it was used by a significant number of inhabitants from more than one neighbourhood. The landowner is protected by the other requirements of s 22(1A), particularly the requirement for use to be continuing.

Judges:

Arden, Sullivan, Tomlinson LLJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 1438

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Commons Registration Act 1965 14

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Leeds Group Plc v Leeds City Council ChD 21-Apr-2010
Application had been made to the defendant to register as a common land belonging in part to the claimant and in part to the defendant. The claimant objected to the registration. The defendant did not. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Paddico (267) Ltd v Kirklees Metropolitan Council and Others ChD 23-Jun-2011
The company sought the rectification of the register of village greens to remove an entry relating to its land, saying that the Council had not properly considered the need properly to identify the locality which was said to have enjoyed the rights . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.427368