Category: Land

Berkeley Leisure Group Ltd v Williams and Others: CA 1994

A right to claim rectification of the boundary of the land conveyed passed with the conveyance of the land itself.

Citations:

[1994] EGCS 18

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

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: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.263195

Barclays Bank Plc v Estates and Commercial Limited: CA 20 Feb 1996

Millett LJ discussed the assertion of a vendor’s lien where a third party would be adversely affected: ‘A party with an equitable charge can be taken to agree to the postponement of his property against any party who was allowed to his knowledge to purchase the land on the faith that it is unencumbered.’ and
‘As soon as a binding contract for sale of land is entered into the vendor has a lien on the property for the purchase money and a right to remain in possession of the property until payment is made. The lien does not arise on completion but on exchange of contracts. It is discharged on completion to the extent that the purchase money is paid: In re Birmingham, decd.; Savage v. Stannard [1959] Ch. 523, cited with approval in London and Cheshire Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laplagrene Property Co. Ltd. [ 1971] Ch. 499 , 514. Even if the vendor executes an outright conveyance of the legal estate in favour of the purchaser and delivers the title deeds to him, he still retains an equitable lien on the property to secure the payment of any part of the purchase money which remains unpaid. The lien is not excluded by the fact that the conveyance contains an express receipt for the purchase money.
The lien arises by operation of law and independently of the agreement between the parties. It does not depend in any way upon the parties’ subjective intentions. It is excluded where its retention would be inconsistent with the provisions of the contract for sale or with the true nature of the transaction as disclosed by the documents. It is also excluded where, on completion, the vendor receives all that he bargained for: Capital Finance Co. Ltd. v. Stokes [1969] 1 Ch. 261 and Congresbury Motors Ltd. v. Anglo-Belge Finance Co. Ltd. [1971] Ch. 81. In each of those cases the vendor took a legal charge to secure payment. The unpaid vendor’s lien was held to be excluded notwithstanding that the charge later became void for want of registration. In Williams on Vendor and Purchaser , 4th ed. (1936), vol. 2, p. 984, there is a passage which deals with the exclusion of the lien: ‘The vendor may, however, waive or abandon his lien for the unpaid purchase-money, and his intention to do so may be either expressed or implied from the circumstances of the case.’
After dealing with express waiver or abandonment the author continues:
‘Where such waiver or abandonment is sought to be implied, the onus lies on those who deny the existence of the lien, which arises by the rule of equity in the absence of stipulation to the contrary; the question is one of the parties’ intention, to be determined by the documents they have executed and the circumstances of the case; and the test is, whether they have in effect agreed that the vendor shall have some other security or mode of payment in substitution for his lien.’
As the authorities demonstrate the test is an objective one. The question is: what intention is to be attributed to the parties from the transaction into which they have entered? . . ‘

Judges:

Millett LJ, Waite LJ, Thorpe LJ

Citations:

[1997] 1 WLR 415, [1996] EWCA Civ 1354, (1997) 74 P and CR 30

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Analysed – Kettlewell v Watson 1884
A vendor’s lien was postponed to the equitable interest of a third party with whom the purchaser from the vendor had had dealings. . .

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 – Scott v Southern Pacific Mortgages Ltd and Others SC 22-Oct-2014
The appellant challenged a sale and rent back transaction. He said that the proposed purchaser had misrepresented the transaction to them. The Court was asked s whether the home owners had interests whose priority was protected by virtue of section . .
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.

Equity, Land, Contract

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.261516

Bugajny And Others v Poland: ECHR 6 Nov 2007

The claimants complained that their land had been expropriated. Certain plots in a development area had been designated as ‘internal roads’, which were in due course built and opened to the public. The developers sought to transfer ownership to the council in return for compensation, under a statute by which ‘public roads’ were required to be expropriated subject to compensation. This request was rejected on the grounds that, not having been provided for in the local land development plan, they did not belong to the category of ‘public roads’.
Held: The claimants succeeded. The requirement to accept the public use of the roads was an interference with the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions within A1P1. Although it met the requirements of being lawful and in the general interest, it was not proportionate.
The court recognised that ‘in the area of land development and town planning’ contracting states enjoyed ‘a wide margin of appreciation in order to implement their policies’; but it was for the court to determine ‘whether the requisite balance was maintained in a manner consonant with the applicant’s right of property’ . . To explain how it approached that task, it is necessary to quote from the judgment at some length:
‘ . . [The roads] currently serve both the general public and the housing estate which the applicants developed and are open both to public and private transport of all kinds . . Given that the entire area of the housing estate covers nine hectares which were divided into as many as thirty-six plots of land designated for the construction purposes, it is reasonable to accept that a considerable number of people can be said to use these roads. It has not been shown or even argued that the access to the estate or the use of these roads is restricted or limited in any way. The situation examined in the present case must therefore be distinguished from that of ‘fenced’ housing estates to which the public access is restricted by a decision of its inhabitants.
The only way in which the land in question can now be used is as roads. The applicants are also currently obliged to bear the costs of their maintenance. The Court emphasises that the burden which the applicants were made to bear is not limited in time in any way.
The Court observes that one of the arguments on which the authorities relied when refusing to expropriate the applicants’ property was that the roads to be constructed on the estate had not been included in the local land development plan. However, it reiterates that it was not in dispute that the decision on the division could be issued only when the division plan submitted by the owners was compatible with the land development plan. The Court considers that by adopting such an approach the authorities could effectively evade the obligation to build and maintain roads other than major thoroughfares provided for in the plans and shift this obligation onto individual owners.
The Court finally notes that the Poznan Regional Court expressed serious doubts as to whether the applicants’ situation was compatible with the requirements of article 1 of Protocol No 1. This court expressly compared the applicants’ position to that of the applicant in the Papamichalopoulos v Greece case [(1993) 16 EHRR 440] and considered it to be ‘even worse’. In the Court’s view, the applicants’ situation in the present case was less serious than the situation examined in the Papamichalopoulos judgment, because they were not divested of all possibility of using their property. Nonetheless, such a critical assessment on the part of the domestic court is certainly, in the Court’s view, of relevance for the overall assessment of the case.
Having regard to the above considerations, the Court is of the view that a fair balance was not struck between the competing general and individual interests and that the applicants had to bear an excessive individual burden.’ (paras 70-74)

Judges:

J. Casadevall, P

Citations:

22531/05, [2007] ECHR 891

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights A1P1

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.

Human Rights, Land

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.261269

A G of Southern Nigeria v John Holt and Company (Liverpool) Limited: PC 9 Feb 2015

(Southern Nigeria) The right to use servient land for the purpose of storage was claimed. It was argued that such a right could not exist as an easement.
Held: Lord Shaw of Dunfermline said: ‘there is nothing in the purposes for which the easement is claimed inconsistent in principle with a right of easement as such.’

Judges:

Lord Shaw of Dunfermline

Citations:

[1915] AC 599, [1915] UKPC 7

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

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.

Land

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.260030

Dobson and others v Thames Water Utilities Ltd and Another: TCC 24 Aug 2007

The several claimants sought damages from the defendants for nuisance from mosquitoes which collected at the defendant’s sewage works.

Judges:

Ramsey J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 2021 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Appeal from – Dobson and others v Thames Utilities CA 18-Mar-2008
Claim for orders re management of sewerage works – smell and mosquitoes. Leave to appeal granted. . .
Appeal from – Dobson and others v Thames Water Utilities Ltd and Another CA 29-Jan-2009
The claimants complained of odours and mosquitoes affecting their properties from the activities of the defendants in the conduct of their adjoining Sewage Treatment plant. The issue was as to the rights of non title holders to damages in nuisance . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Human Rights, Nuisance, Utilities

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.260062

Nester v Stuart: LT 4 Jul 2007

LT RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS – costs – single objector – objections withdrawn before exchange of expert reports -whether objector’s conduct unreasonable – objector ordered to pay applicants’ costs.

Citations:

[2007] EWLands LP – 53 – 2005

Links:

Bailii

Land

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258715

Lockwood and Others v Highways England Company Ltd: UTLC 20 Jun 2019

Compensation – Planning Permission – Certificate of Appropriate Alternative Development – appeal site in Green Belt – certificate granted by Council for 11 or 12 dwellings – previous outline planning permission for 14 dwellings granted in 2015 – certificate sought for development of nine dwellings – held that planning obligations policies apply to smaller development – appeal allowed – certificate varied – section 18 Land Compensation Act 1961

Citations:

[2019] UKUT 104 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Land Compensation Act 1961 18

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.639209

Evans v Edinburgh Corporation and Others: HL 28 Mar 1916

A passer-by in an Edinburgh street having been injured by the sudden opening out into the street of a garden door, held in an action of damages at his instance (1) that the owners of the property were not liable merely for having premises which if used negligently might cause damage, nor (2) were the road authority in the absence of a statutory duty; the Edinburgh Municipal and Police Act 1879, sec. 151, held not to be applicable, and the provisions of the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act 1878 not available to the pursuer in the absence of averments to show that the road in question came within the definition of that Act.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Buckmaster), Viscount Haldane, Lord Kinnear, Lord Atkinson, and Lord Parker

Citations:

[1916] UKHL 388, 53 SLR 388

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Personal Injury, Land

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.630675

Earl of Home v Lord Belhaven: HL 25 May 1903

The returns derived from minerals in the course of being worked are to be taken into account in fixing the amount of composition due to a superior; and (2) ( rev. judgment of the First Division with Three Consulted Judges) that the amount due to the superior was the amount of the rents and royalties received by the vassal for the year in which the composition became exigible, subject to all proper and usual deductions.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Halsbury), Lord Shand, Lord Davey, and Lord Robertson

Citations:

[1903] UKHL 607, 40 SLR 607

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.630578

Birmingham Midshires Mortgage Services Ltd v Sabherwal: CA 17 Dec 1999

An equity arising from a proprietary estoppel is not an ‘equitable interest’ capable of being overreached pursuant to section 2 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

Judges:

Robert Walker LJ

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 3042, (1999) 80 P and CR 256

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – 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 – Scott v Southern Pacific Mortgages Ltd and Others SC 22-Oct-2014
The appellant challenged a sale and rent back transaction. He said that the proposed purchaser had misrepresented the transaction to them. The Court was asked s whether the home owners had interests whose priority was protected by virtue of section . .
Cited – Scott v Southern Pacific Mortgages Ltd and Others SC 22-Oct-2014
The appellant challenged a sale and rent back transaction. He said that the proposed purchaser had misrepresented the transaction to them. The Court was asked s whether the home owners had interests whose priority was protected by virtue of section . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258357

RHJ Ltd v FT Patten (Holdings) Ltd and Another: ChD 13 Jul 2007

The court was asked whether the grant of a lease including a clause reserving: ‘All rights to the access of light or air from the said adjoining property known as Victoria House and Graham House to any of the windows of the demised property.’ allowed the tenant to claim a right of light over neighbouring land belonging to the landlord so as to prevent development. The lease also reserved to the landlord: ‘The full and free right to erect, build, re-build and or alter as they think fit at any time and from time to time any buildings or bays or projections to buildings on any land adjoining the demised property and/or on the opposite sides of the adjoining streets and access ways.’
Lewison J said: ‘The real distinction that the cases draw is, as it seems to me, between clauses that deal with the position as it exists at the date of the lease, and clauses that deal with what might happen in the future. Clauses of the first kind are effective only to prevent the creation of easements by express or implied grant; and do not prevent the subsequent acquisition of a right of light by prescription. Clauses of the second kind may prevent the acquisition of a right of light by prescription of what they authorise would interfere with light. If, on a fair reading of the clause they do, then it is not necessary, in my judgment, for the clause to use the word ‘light’. Nor, in my judgement, is it necessary for the clause to provide that the enjoyment of light is ‘permissive’. What is needed is that the clause makes it clear that the enjoyment of light is not absolute and indefeasible. The court must ‘find out the substance of the contract’: in other words it is a question of interpretation of the clause in question. Once the clause has been interpreted, that interpretation will have been ‘expressly’ agreed. A clause in a lease which authorises the landlord to build as he pleases is likely to satisfy the test.’

Judges:

Lewison J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1655 (Ch), [2007] NPC 90, [2008] L and TR 7, [2007] 4 All ER 744, [2007] 29 EG 143, [2007] 44 EG 182, [2007] 3 EGLR 1

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Prescription Act 1832 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Marlborough (West End) Ltd v Wilks Head and Eve ChD 20-Dec-1996
A dispute between neighbours was settled by a deed with the following clause: ‘IT IS HEREBY AGREED AND DECLARED that notwithstanding that the Building Owners have placed windows in that part of their new buildings which overlook the premises . .
Cited – Mitchell v Cantrill CA 1887
In 1864 Sir Humphrey de Trafford granted a 999 year lease of a dwelling house ‘with all rights and appurtenances, legal, used, or reputed, to the said plot of land, except rights, if any, restricting the free use of any adjoining land or the . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – RHJ Ltd v FT Patten (Holdings) Ltd and Another CA 12-Mar-2008
A right to light is an unusual form of easement in the sense that it exists only with regard to the access to light to defined apertures in a building (as opposed to the dominant land generally) and its acquisition depends on actual enjoyment, not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Land

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258163

Scottish and Newcastle Plc v Lancashire Mortgage Corporation Ltd: CA 5 Jul 2007

The parties each had a charge over a property, and now disputed which had priority. The brewery appealed an order for rectification of the registers to reverse priority on the basis of an estoppel. The charge in their favour had been registered first, but the respondents charge was intended to secure finance to repay it in part, and the respondents said the apellants had agreed to give them priority even though at first no there had been no direct communication between them.
Held: The court upheld the judge’s findings on the facts. There had been passive acquiescence by the appellant and its appeal against the finding of an estoppel failed.

Judges:

Mummery, Sedley,Moore-Bick LJJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 684

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Land Registration Act 1925, Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Taylors Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co Ltd ChD 1981
The fundamental principle that equity is concerned to prevent unconscionable conduct permeates all the elements of the doctrine of estoppel. In the light of the more recent cases, the principle ‘requires a very much broader approach which is . .
Cited – Amalgamated Investment and Property Co Ltd (in Liq) v Texas Commerce International Bank Ltd CA 1982
The court explained the nature of an estoppel by convention.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘The doctrine of estoppel is one of the most flexible and useful in the armoury of the law. But it has become overloaded with cases. That is why I have not gone . .
Cited – Yaxley v Gotts and Another CA 24-Jun-1999
Oral Agreement Creating Proprietory Estoppel
The defendant offered to give to the Plaintiff, a builder, the ground floor of a property in return for converting the house, and then managing it. They were friends, and the oral offer was accepted. The property was then actually bought in the name . .
Cited – Republic of India and Another v India Steamship Co Ltd (Indian Endurance and Indian Grace) (No 2) HL 23-Oct-1997
When a action in rem against a ship was in fact parallel to an action in personam begun in India and awaiting a decision; an action was not to be allowed here.
Lord Steyn: ‘It is settled that an estoppel by convention may arise where parties to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Estoppel

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.254462

National Grid Gas Plc, Regina (on the Application of) v The Environment Agency: HL 27 Jun 2007

The Agency sought to impose liability on the appellant to remediate land which had been polluted by the appellant’s predecessor, the East Midlands Gas Board, claiming it to be a responsible as successor.
Held: The appeal succeeded: ‘the appellant is plainly not, as a matter of ordinary language, a ‘person . . who caused or knowingly permitted’ the contamination to occur: it is a company which (albeit indirectly) acquired the business and assets of such a person. The respondent’s case does not merely run into problems because of the clear language of section 78F(2) of the 1990 Act. If the section is to be interpreted as extending to a successor to the business of the original polluter, is the extension to be limited to a statutory successor, or to a successor who has not acquired the business at arm’s length, or to a successor who has occupied or owned the land, or is it to apply to any successor to the business? ‘

Judges:

Lord Hoffmann, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Mance, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury

Citations:

[2007] UKHL 30, Times 28-Jun-2007

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Gas Act 1972, Environmental Protection Act 1990 78E

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – National Grid Gas Plc, Regina (on the Application of) v The Environment Agency Admn 17-May-2006
The claimant sought a judicial review of the decision to hold them responsible for necessary works of remediation. They were statutory successors to British Gas Corporation.
Held: The legislation clearly attempted to hold the contaminator . .
Applied – Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart HL 26-Nov-1992
Reference to Parliamentary Papers behind Statute
The inspector sought to tax the benefits in kind received by teachers at a private school in having their children educated at the school for free. Having agreed this was a taxable emolument, it was argued as to whether the taxable benefit was the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment, Land

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.253721

Murphy v Gooch: CA 27 Jun 2007

The unmarried parties had sought an order from the court as to their respective interests in their former family home.
Held:The judge had been incorrect to make his decsion based on the principles of equitable accounting. He should have used the 1996 Act.
Lightman J summarised the effect of the 1996 Act: ‘section 12 of the 1996 Act confers on beneficiaries entitled to an interest in possession a right to occupy land available for his occupation. Section 13 confers on trustees, where there are two or more of such beneficiaries, the power (1) to exclude or restrict the entitlement to occupation of any one or more (but not all) of such beneficiaries; (2) to impose conditions on any beneficiary in relation to his entitlement to occupy, including conditions requiring him: (a) to pay outgoings and expenses in relation to the land; and (b) where the entitlement of another beneficiary to occupy land under section 12 has been excluded or restricted, to make payments by way of compensation to the beneficiary whose entitlement has been excluded or restricted and to forego any payment or other benefit to which he would otherwise be entitled under the trust so as to benefit that beneficiary. This section is designed to confer on trustees power to regulate and set the terms for future occupation of trust land. Section 14 confers power on the court on application by trustees or others interested to make such orders as it thinks fit: (a) relating to any of the trustees’ functions (which includes their functions under section 13); and (b) to declare the nature or extent of a person’s interest in property subject to the trust. It must be under the latter of these two powers that the statutory jurisdiction is conferred on the court to take accounts between co-owners.
Under the previous equitable doctrine the court was concerned only with considerations relevant to achieving a just result between the parties. The statutory innovation is section 15, which requires the court in determining all applications for an order under section 14 to include amongst the other matters to which it has regard: (1) in all cases (so far as applicable) the four matters referred to by Baroness Hale; (2) in the case of applications relating to the exercise by trustees of the powers conferred by section 13 the circumstances and wishes of each of the beneficiaries who is (or apart from any previous exercise by the trustees would be) entitled to occupy the land under section 12; and (3) in case of any other application (other than one relating to the conveyance of land to beneficiaries absolutely entitled) the circumstances and wishes of any beneficiaries of full age entitled to an interest in possession. The wider ambit of relevant considerations means that the task of the court must now be, not merely to do justice between the parties, but to do justice between the parties with due regard to the relevant statutory considerations and in particular (where applicable) the welfare of the minor, the interests of secured creditors and the circumstances and wishes of the beneficiaries specified.’

Judges:

Lightman J, Mummery LJ, Sedley LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 603

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 14

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – in Re Pavlou (A Bankrupt) ChD 17-Mar-1993
Mr and Mrs Pavlou bought a house for andpound;12,500 with a mortgage of andpound;9,500. After the husband left, the wife remained in sole occupation, and paid the mortgage instalments as they fell due. Thirteen years after the marriage Mrs Pavlou . .
Cited – Stack v Dowden HL 25-Apr-2007
The parties had cohabited for a long time, in a home bought by Ms Dowden. After the breakdown of the relationship, Mr Stack claimed an equal interest in the second family home, which they had bought in joint names. The House was asked whether, when . .
Cited – Byford v Butler; In re Byford deceased ChD 10-Jun-2003
The house was owned in joint names. The husband became bankrupt, and the wife continued to pay the mortgage as to interest and capital. The trustee sought a declaration as to the ownership of the interests in the house. After the husband died, the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Trusts

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.253706

Corner and others v Salford City Council: LT 9 May 2007

LT COMPENSATION – Compulsory Purchase – dwelling house -freeholder in bankruptcy – trustee in bankruptcy disclaiming interest -freehold determined on escheat – absentee first chargee -compensation determined at andpound;6,000 -s5 and Schedule 2 Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 not applicable.

Judges:

Trott FRICS

Citations:

[2007] EWLands ACQ – 99 – 2006

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 2

Land

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.253589

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 to secure the section 106 agreement and the purchaser was under no obligation to complete in the absence of such an agreement. One question was whether a term could be implied allowing the vendor to rescind if, despite the exercise of all reasonable endeavours, the stipulated agreement could not be achieved and the buyer did not waive that condition. Implicit in that question was that it was open to the buyer to waive the condition.
Held: The appeal failed (on this point) There was no inconsistency between the presence in the contract of a condition for the sole benefit of the buyer and the implication into the contract of a term to the effect that, if the seller complied with his obligation to use all reasonable endeavours but was unable to complete the section 106 agreement, the seller should give to the buyer an opportunity to complete the sale without that agreement (in other words, to waive the condition requiring that agreement) but if the buyer should choose not to complete the sale on that basis the vendor would have the right to terminate the contract.

Judges:

Waller LJ, Buxton LJ, Lloyd LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 475, [2007] 2 EGLR 152

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – 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 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.

Contract, Land

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.252508

Walsingham’s Case: 11 Jan 1573

An owner of an estate in fee simple ‘has a time in the land without end, or the land for time without end,’ and ‘An estate in the land is a time in the land, or land for a time.’ and ‘the land itself is one thing, and the estate in the land is another thing, for an estate in the land is a time in the land, or land for a time, and there are diversities of estates, which are no more than diversities of time’

Citations:

(1573) 2 Plowd 547, [1573] EWHC KB J99, 75 ER 805

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.252304

O’Connor and Another v Wiltshire County Council: CA 9 May 2007

The claimants sought compensation for the diminution in the values of their properties because of noise pollution from a new highway. The defendant highway authority said that liability had been transferred to its contractors, and it had not been and was not a highway maintainable at public expense.
Held: The road had been constructed for the defendant through a consortium. The construction had however been under the authority’s powers under the 1980 Act, which did not empower the authority to avoid responsibility by contracting it out. It remained liable.

Judges:

Chadiwck LJ, Scott Baker LJ, Thomas LJ

Citations:

Times 28-May-2007, [2007] EWCA Civ 426

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Land Compensation Act 1973 16, Highways Act 1980 24(2) 274

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Matthews v Ministry of Defence HL 13-Feb-2003
The claimant sought damages against the Crown, having suffered asbestosis whilst in the armed forces. He challenged the denial to him of a right of action by the 1947 Act.
Held: Human rights law did not create civil rights, but rather voided . .
Cited – Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza HL 21-Jun-2004
Same Sex Partner Entitled to tenancy Succession
The protected tenant had died. His same-sex partner sought a statutory inheritance of the tenancy.
Held: His appeal succeeded. The Fitzpatrick case referred to the position before the 1998 Act: ‘Discriminatory law undermines the rule of law . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Local Government, Nuisance

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.251775

Childs and Another v Vernon: CA 16 Mar 2007

The parties disputed the boundary between their properties, alleging various trespasses. The judge ordered a single expert witness. The court had been unable to establish the line of the boundary from the conveyances or the Land Registry plans. After the trial it appeared that the expert had met privately with one of the parties in breach of the guidelines in In re P.
Held: In practice the boundary line had been determined by the judge from the evidence of the non-expert witness. Any tainting of his evidence had not affected the outcome.

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 305

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – MP (a Child) v Mid-Kent Healthcare Trust CA 5-Nov-2001
In medical negligence cases, where non-medical expert evidence was ordered to be provided to the court on a joint basis, as should normally be the case, it would be inappropriate for that expert to be cross examined by either of the parties, and nor . .
Cited – Kingsmill v Millard 20-Jun-1855
Parke B set out the doctrine that a tenant acquiring adjoining land by adverse possession acquires it on behalf of his landlord: ‘It is laid down in all the cases – whether the inclosed land is part of the waste, or belongs to the landlord or a . .
Cited – Tower Hamlets v Barrett and Another CA 19-Jul-2005
The defendant tenants appealed an order for them to surrender possession of land which they claimed had been acquired by adverse possession. The buildings, including one which shared a party wall with the building owned by the defendants had been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.251390

Pitts and Another v Cadogan: LT 28 Mar 2007

LT LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – preliminary issues -procedure – deferment rate and hope value – whether respondent on appeal entitled to seek addition for hope value – whether respondent entitled to seek higher price than LVT determined – held respondent entitled to seek addition for hope value but not entitled to seek higher price than that determined by LVT.

Citations:

[2007] EWLands LRA – 79 – 2006

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Appeal from – Cadogan v Pitts and Another CA 4-Dec-2007
. .
At Lands Tribunal – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.251194

Jacklin and Another v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire: CA 16 Feb 2007

The claimants asserted a vehicular right of way over land belonging to the defendant poilce authority. The defendant said that it had been abandoned. The judge found that it had not been and granted an injunction to prevent the defendants obstructing the way.
Held: The defendant’s appeal failed. He had not shown any error in law to vitiate the exercise by the judge of his discretion in the matter.
Lloyd LJ (with whom Buxton and Rix LJJ agreed) stressed that, in order to avoid the grant of an injunction, a defendant must show that all four of A L Smith LJ’s criteria in Shelfer have been satisfied.

Judges:

Buxton, Rix, Lloyd LJJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 181

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Company, Meux’s Brewery Co v Same CA 1895
The plaintiff sought damages and an injunction for nuisance by noise and vibration which was causing structural injury to a public house.
Held: The court set out the rules for when a court should not grant an injunction for an infringement of . .
Cited – Jaggard v Sawyer and Another CA 18-Jul-1994
Recovery of damages after Refusal of Injunction
The plaintiff appealed against the award of damages instead of an injunction aftter the County court had found the defendant to have trespassed on his land by a new building making use of a private right of way.
Held: The appeal failed.

Cited by:

Cited – HKRUK II (CHC) Ltd v Heaney ChD 3-Sep-2010
The claimant sought a declaration that its property was free of a suggested right of light in favour of its neighbour . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.249883

Betterment Properties (Weymouth) Ltd v Dorset County Council: ChD 2 Mar 2007

The company sought an order removing some 46 acres of land from designation as a village green. The claimant sought the amendment of the register. The parties disputed what evidence beyond that available to the committee making the decision should be admissible.
Held: The jurisdiction of the court was not an appellate one, and therefore the court was not restricted by appellate rules. The court was free to use the procedure best calculated to enable a just and fully informed decision to be reached. It would be a matter for the judge exercising his case management powers to specify those acts.
Lightman J considered the section 14 procedure: ‘In my judgment on the face of the statute the court is free to adopt the procedure best calculated to enable a just and fully informed decision to be reached whether ‘no amendment or a different amendment ought to have been made’, whether it is just to rectify the register, what should stand as evidence and what evidence should be admitted. The court in exercise of its case management powers will have regard to the process adopted by the registration authority or any panel when the amendment of the register under s 13 of the 1965 Act was made and the evidence adduced before it. It will no doubt have in mind that with the passage of time recollections will have dimmed and potential witnesses may have died or ceased to be available. It may (for example) direct that evidence (in particular if unchallenged) adduced before the registration authority or any panel shall stand as evidence and any finding by it shall stand: (a) as a finding of fact at the hearing before the court; (b) as evidence; or (c) as a finding of fact in the absence of evidence to the contrary; and in deciding on the admissibility of evidence the court will no doubt bear in mind that no amendment shall be rectified unless it is just to do so and that it may be unjust to order rectification on the basis of new evidence eg which cannot now be challenged but could have been when registration took place.
This approach accords with what Parliament must have had in mind in conferring the jurisdiction to rectify. First it is no trivial matter for a public or private landowner to have land registered as a town or village green. If the entry in the register cannot be corrected under s 14, registration can effect (potentially catastrophic) blight on user and development. Section 16 of the 2006 Act when it comes into force will authorise the Secretary of State in the circumstances and on the conditions there set out to direct deregistration and accordingly where the provisions of that section can be invoked the blight may no longer be permanent, but the consequences of registration remain serious. Second the procedure on the application for registration is intended to be relatively simple and informal. There is no provision for the service of subpoenas or for orders for disclosure. Relevant evidence may only emerge later. It may be difficult (if not impossible) at a later date to identify the exact nature and limits (let alone the credibility) of the evidence adduced in support of (or against) the application or of the registration authority’s conclusions as to the credibility or relevance of any particular evidence. Because of the absence (for any of a number of reasons) of objection to the application, it may have been appropriate for the Applicant for registration to limit the evidence he adduced or the relevant evidence may have been unavailable. The problem is complicated when (as in this case) there is a change in ownership of the servient land. The new owner is likely to be at a disadvantage knowing the earlier course of events. To limit the evidence available in the High Court to the evidence adduced before the registration authority is calculated to raise serious practical problems, give rise to unfairness and to emasculate the jurisdiction. Parliament must surely have preferred to vest in the court the power to decide whether the admission of any particular evidence was calculated to promote the achievement of justice’.

Judges:

Lightman J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 365 (Ch), Times 02-Mar-2007, [2007] NPC 26, [2007] 2 All ER 1000

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Commons Registration Act 1965, Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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 . .
Cited – Jones v Attorney General CA 1974
The court was concerned with an appeal against an order made following an inquiry made under statutory powers by the Charity Commission, which had resulted in a written report. The court held that the issues were at large, but that the contents of . .
Cited – Lloyd v McMahon HL 12-Mar-1987
The district auditor had issued a certificate under the 1982 Act surcharging the appellant councillors in the sum of 106,103, pounds being the amount of a loss incurred or deficiency caused, as the auditor found, by their wilful misconduct.
Cited – Regina v Suffolk County Council Ex Parte Steed and Steed Admn 1995
Judicial review was sought of the Council’s decision to refuse to register a park as a Town or Village Green.
Held: Carnwath J looked at the procedure to be followed by a council receiving an application for registration of commons right: ‘it . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Betterment Properties (Weymouth) Ltd v Dorset County Council CA 6-Feb-2008
A large area of land had been registered as a town or village green. The company, owner of the land, had succeeded in having the registration removed. The Council appealed, question whether the procedure undertaken by the High Court on such an . .
See Also – Betterment Properties (Weymouth) Ltd v Dorset County Council and Another ChD 23-Nov-2010
A claim was made for the rectification of the register of Town or Village Greens to remove the registration for their land.
Held: The register should be rectified. The user relied on had been neither peaceable nor ‘as of right’ as required. As . .
See Also – Betterment Properties (Weymouth) Ltd v James Carthy and Company Ltd CA 15-Dec-2010
Dispute as to presence of public right of way. . .
Cited – Paddico (267) Ltd v Kirklees Metropolitan Council and Others ChD 23-Jun-2011
The company sought the rectification of the register of village greens to remove an entry relating to its land, saying that the Council had not properly considered the need properly to identify the locality which was said to have enjoyed the rights . .
Appeal from – Taylor v Betterment Properties (Weymouth) Ltd and Another CA 7-Mar-2012
The respondent owned farmland over which public rights of way were claimed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.249387

Crowley and Another (T/A Contraband Discount Stores) v Liverpool PSDA Ltd and Another: LT 14 Feb 2007

LT COMPENSATION – Compulsory purchase – acquisition of retail premises in connection with major city centre regeneration project – valuation method – whether total extinguishment or notional relocation – suitability of alternative premises – value of existing lease (rule 2) – disturbance (rule 6) – Land Compensation Act 1961 s.5 – compensation awarded andpound;700,000

Citations:

[2007] EWLands ACQ – 47 – 2005

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Land Compensation Act 1961 5

Land

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.249408

Chapman and Another v Godinn Properties Ltd and others: CA 27 Jun 2005

Dispute over right of way over land subject to claim for possessory title. ‘But each case must turn on its own facts. In a case of this nature, the court must ask itself what it is that would be expected of somebody in possession of land of this kind. What would such a person be expected to be doing in order to demonstrate his intention to exclude the world at large. ‘

Judges:

Chadwick LJ, Rix LJ, Carnwath LJ

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 941

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Powell v McFarlane ChD 1977
Intention to Establish Adverse Possession of Land
A squatter had occupied the land and defended a claim for possession. The court discussed the conditions necessary to establish an intention to possess land adversely to the paper owner.
Held: Slade J said: ‘It will be convenient to begin by . .
Cited – J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd and Others v Graham and Another HL 4-Jul-2002
The claimants sought ownership by adverse possession of land. Once the paper owner had been found, they indicated a readiness to purchase their interest. The court had found that this letter contradicted an animus possidendi. The claimant had . .
Cited – Buckinghamshire County Council v Moran CA 13-Feb-1989
The parties’ respective properties were separated by a fence or hedge and the true owner had no access to the disputed land. In 1967 the Defendants’ predecessors in title began to maintain the land by mowing the grass and trimming the hedges and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.229197

Heronsgate Enterprises Ltd v Harman (Chesham) Ltd: CA 21 Jan 1993

The court described the duties of a vendor as trustee of the property after exchange but before completion: ‘It is well-established law that, subject always to the terms of the particular contract, a seller of property under a specifically enforceable contract is to be regarded after the contract has been made as holding the property as a trustee for the buyer. However, he is not a bare trustee. His trust obligations are limited in certain respects. For example, if, as is usually the case, he is entitled to remain in possession for the period after the contract has been made pending the date fixed for completion, he is entitled to keep and retain for his own benefit the rents and profits of the land arising during that period . . The seller must take care not to damage the property or to prejudice the buyer’s interest in the property of which, on completion, he will become the legal owner. But in general, within those limits he is entitled to the ordinary rents and profits, and for him to take steps to obtain them after contract and before the date fixed for completion, either by occupying and using the property himself or by permitting another to occupy and work the property in return for a rent, is not a breach of his duties as seller under a contract for sale.’ The release of a tipper from an indemnity agreement was not a matter of which a purchaser could complain, since the benefit of the agreement was not part of the property being sold: it was not annexed to the land, and was a benefit vested in the vendor under an agreement which, on completion, would not survive to bind or to benefit the purchaser as the new owner. If the purchaser could not compel the vendor to assign that benefit, then the purchaser could not complain if the vendor chose not to do so.

Judges:

Sir Donald Nicholls VC

Citations:

Unreported, 21 January 1993

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Englewood Properties Limited v Patel and Another ChD 16-Feb-2005
The claimant was a property developer, which sought to sell a row of shops at auction. One lot was a Woolworths store, where the company owned both freehold and leasehold interests, with Woolworths occupying an underlease, which the claimant had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Contract

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.223741

Ringeisen v Austria: ECHR 16 Jul 1971

The Austrian District and Regional Real Property Transactions Commission refused to approve the sale of a number of plots of land. The applicant challenged the refusal alleging bias and contending that his article 6 rights were violated for that reason. The Austrian statute provided that the refusal of approval rendered the sale null and void.
Held: ‘In the present case, when Ringeisen purchased property from the Roth couple, he had a right to have the contract for sale which they had made with him approved if he fulfilled, as he claimed to do, the conditions laid down in the Act. Although it was applying rules of administrative law, the Regional Commission’s decision was to be decisive for the relations in civil law (‘de caractere civil’) between Ringeisen and the Roth couple. This is enough to make it necessary for the court to decide whether or not the proceedings in this case complied with the requirements of article 6(1) of the Convention.’
In connection with an article 6 claim: ”For article 6(1) to be applicable to a case (‘contestation’) it is not necessary that both parties to the proceedings should be private persons, which is the view of the majority of the Commission and of the Government. The wording of article 6(1) is far wider; the French expression ‘contestations sur (des) droits et obligations de caractere civil’ covers all proceedings the result of which is decisive for private rights and obligations. The English text, ‘determination of . . civil rights and obligations’, confirms this interpretation.
The character of the legislation which governs how the matter is to be determined (civil, commercial, administrative law, etc) and that of the authority which is invested with jurisdiction in the matter (ordinary court, administrative body, etc) are therefore of little consequence.’

Citations:

2614/65, [1971] ECHR 2, (1971) 1 EHRR 455

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

See Also – MR v Austria ECHR 18-Jul-1968
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Ringeisen v Austria ECHR 22-Jun-1972
Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Pecuniary damage – financial award; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award. . .
See also – Ringeisen v Austria ECHR 23-Jun-1973
(Interpretation) . .
Cited – A, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Croydon SC 26-Nov-2009
The applicants sought asylum, and, saying that they were children under eighteen, sought also the assistance of the local authority. Social workers judged them to be over eighteen and assistance was declined.
Held: The claimants’ appeals . .
Cited – G, Regina (on The Application of) v X School and Others CA 20-Jan-2010
The claimant was a teaching assistant. A complaint had been made that he had kissed a boy having work experience at the school, but it had been decided that no criminal prosecution would follow. He sought judicial review of the school’s decision to . .
Applied – Le Compte, Van Leuven And De Meyere v Belgium ECHR 23-Jun-1981
The applicants were suspended from practising medicine for three months by the Provincial Council of the Ordre des medecins. They appealed unsuccessfully to the Appeal Council and again unsuccessfully to the Court de Cassation. Dr Le Compte . .
Cited – G, Regina (on The Application of) v X School SC 29-Jun-2011
The claimant was employed as a teaching assistant. He was suspended after allegations of sexual misbehaviour with boy at the school. He refused to take part in the disciplinary proceedings until the police investigation was concluded. A decision was . .
Cited – Regina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others HL 9-May-2001
Power to call in is administrative in nature
The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights . .
Cited – Reprieve and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Prime Minister Admn 30-Jun-2020
Standing may not be enough for JR
The claimants sought judicial review of the defendant’s decision that it was no longer necessary to establish a public inquiry to investigate allegations of involvement of the United Kingdom intelligence services in torture, mistreatment and . .
Cited – QX v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 15-May-2020
Challenge to Temporary Exclusion Order.
Held: The concept of ‘civil rights and obligations’ cannot be interpreted solely by reference to national law but has an autonomous meaning within article 6(1) . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Land

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.164868

Regina v London Borough of Hillingdon ex parte McDonagh: Admn 28 Oct 1998

A Local Authority seeking possession under CCR Ord. 24 of land which was occupied by gypsies, had no duty to make enquiries about their housing status. The Department of Environment circular stated only what was good practice, not what was the necessary practice.

Citations:

Times 09-Nov-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 1015

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

County Court Rules 1981 Order 24, Gipsy Sites and Unauthorised Camping (Department of Environment 18/24)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land, Litigation Practice, Housing

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.139136

Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Ltd v Central Saint Giles General Partner Ltd and Another: UTLC 7 Jun 2019

ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS CODE – COSTS – access for inspection of potential site – operator claiming full Code rights on interim basis for MSV – building owner and head lessee refusing access – agreement reached at door of tribunal – respondents adjudged successful parties – costs of reference disproportionate – limited to pounds 5,000 per respondent

Citations:

[2019] UKUT 183 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.638281

Beattie v Glasgow Corporation: HL 7 Nov 1916

Mrs Janet Ferguson or Beattie, wife of John Beattie, 5 William Street, Mile End, Glasgow, pursuer, brought in the Court of Session, against the Corporation of the City of Glasgow, defenders, an action to recover pounds 500 as damages for personal injury received by her through the alleged defective lighting of the common stair at 108 Broad Street, Mile End, Glasgow, the Corporation being responsible under their Police Act of 1866 for supplying and lighting the gas in common stairs.
The Court of Session Act 1808, sec. 15, enacts-‘Hereafter no appeal to the House of Lords shall be allowed from interlocutory judgments, but such appeals shall be allowed only from judgments or decrees on the whole merits of the cause, except with the leave of the Division of the judges pronouncing such interlocutory judgments, or except in cases where there is a difference of opinion among the judges of the said Division.’
In an action to recover from a corporation damages for personal injury caused, as alleged, through defect in the lighting of a common stair for which it was by statute responsible, held that a judgment allowing an issue was an interlocutory judgment, and was, without leave and without a difference of opinion among the judges of the Division, not open for appeal to the House of Lords.

Judges:

Earl Loreburn, Viscount Haldane, Lord Shaw, and Lord Parmoor.

Citations:

[1916] UKHL 24

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Personal Injury, Land

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.630692

P and A Swift Investments v Combined English Stores Group Plc: HL 7 Jul 1988

The House was asked as to whether a covenant touched and concerned the land.
Held: Lord Oliver of Aylmerton said: ‘Formulations of definitive tests are always dangerous, but it seems to me that, without claiming to expound an exhaustive guide, the following provides a satisfactory working test for whether, in any given case, a covenant touches and concerns the land: (1) The Covenant benefits only the reversioner for the time being and, if separated from the reversion, ceases to be of benefit to the covenantee: (2) The Covenant affects the nature, quality, mode of user or value of the land of the reversioner: (3) The Covenant is not expressed to be personal, that is to say neither being given only to a specific reversioner nor in respect of the obligations only of a specific tenant: (4) The fact that a covenant is to pay a sum of money will not prevent it from touching and concerning the land so long as the three foregoing conditions are satisfied and the covenant is connected with something to be done on to or in relation to the land.’

Judges:

Lord Oliver of Aylmerton

Citations:

[1988] UKHL 3, [1989] AC 632

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Approved – Kumar v Dunning and Another CA 15-Apr-1987
The court considered the effect of section 62 of the 1925 Act.
Sir Nicholas Browne-Wilkinson V-C said: ‘The main intention of Section 62 was to provide a form of statutory shorthand rendering it unnecessary to include such words expressly in . .

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 . .
Cited – System Floors Ltd v Ruralpride Ltd and Another CA 31-Oct-1994
A break clause was contained in an agreement not in the lease but in a side letter which made the benefit of the break clause personal to the original lessee but said nothing express as to whether the burden of the break clause passed to an assignee . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.248721

Mayor etc of Congleton v Pattison and Another: KBD 1 Jul 1808

The plaintiffs granted a lease of land subject to a covenant to give notice of those who worked in the silk mills to be erected and to pay fees for workers employed to cover the town’s responsibilities to inhabitants brought into the town. They now sought payment from the defendants, who were successors in title, and who had not given notice or made payments as required. The defendants argued that they were not liable since it was only a collateral covenant and did not run with the land.
Held: The claim failed: ‘This is a covenant in which the assignee is specifically named; and though it were for a thing not in case at the time, yet being specifically named, it would bind him, if it affected the nature, quality, or value of the thing demised, independently of collateral circumstances; or if it affected the mode of enjoying it. But this covenant does not affect the thing demised, in the one way or the other. It may indeed collaterally affect the lessors as to other lands they may have in possession in the same parish, by increasing the poor’s rate upon them; but it cannot affect them even collaterally in respect of the demised premises during the term. How then can it affect the nature, quality, or value of the thing demised? Can it make any difference to the mills, whether they are worked by persons of one parish or another: or can it affect the value of the thing at the end of the term, independently of collateral circumstances? ‘

Judges:

Lord Ellenborough CJ, Le Blanc J

Citations:

[1808] EWHC KB J66

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Land

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.248376

London Borough of Bexley v Maison Maurice Ltd: ChD 15 Dec 2006

The council had taken land by compulsory purchase in order to construct a dual carriageway. It then claimed that it had left undedicated a strip .5 metre wide as a ransom strip to prevent the defendant restoring access to the road.
Held: The result of the council’s decisions was to leave a ransom strip. Whilst the grant of planning permission to create a new access could not create an estoppel, the associated building works might. The company ‘had exchanged one means of access for another effective means of access to the highway; and conducted itself accordingly. In my judgment this belief was encouraged by the Council. ‘ An estoppel had been established against the council, and a declaration was made accordingly.

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 3192 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Highways Act 1980 24(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Hale v Norfolk County Council CA 17-Nov-2000
A public right away could not be presumed to have been granted by the owner of land adjoining a public highway merely from the erection of fences or hedges on the side of a highway. There is no simple rule that the land was deemed to have been . .
Cited – Rhyl Urban District Council v Rhyl Amusements Ltd 1959
The tenant said that the landlord local authority had accepted his surrender of his lease by granting a new one, but the new lease was void as ultra vires.
Held: Not even the surrender of their old lease on the promise to grant the new one . .
Cited – Western Fish Products Ltd v Penwith District Council and Another CA 22-May-1978
Estoppel Cannot Oust Statutory Discretion
The plaintiff had been refused planning permission for a factory. The refusals were followed by the issue of Enforcement Notices and Stop Notices. The plaintiff said that they had been given re-assurances upon which they had relied.
Held: The . .
Cited – Crabb v Arun District Council CA 23-Jul-1975
The plaintiff was led to believe that he would acquire a right of access to his land. In reliance on that belief he sold off part of his land, leaving the remainder landlocked.
Held: His claim to have raised an equity was upheld. The plaintiff . .
Cited – Taylors Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co Ltd ChD 1981
The fundamental principle that equity is concerned to prevent unconscionable conduct permeates all the elements of the doctrine of estoppel. In the light of the more recent cases, the principle ‘requires a very much broader approach which is . .
Cited – Gillett v Holt and Another CA 23-Mar-2000
Repeated Assurances Created Equitable Estoppel
Repeated assurances, given over years, that the claimant would acquire an interest in property on the death of the person giving the re-assurance, and upon which the claimant relied to his detriment, could found a claim of equitable estoppel. The . .
Cited – Grampian Regional Council v City of Aberdeen District Council 1984
The extinguishment of a private right is not a proper matter for a condition attached to a planning permission, even though a negative condition preventing development until a highway has been stopped up is unobjectionable. . .
Cited – Jennings v Rice, Wilson, Marsh, Norris, Norris, and Reed CA 22-Feb-2002
The claimant asserted a proprietary estoppel against the respondents. He had worked for the deceased over many years, for little payment, and doing more and more for her. Though he still worked full time at first, he came to spend nights at the . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Local Government

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.247404

Pankhania and Another v Hackney and Another: ChD 2 Aug 2002

The claimant sought damages alleging misrepresentation of land sold at auction.

Judges:

Rex Tedd QC J

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 2441 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Thomas Witter v TBP Industries Ltd ChD 15-Jul-1994
An award of damages for misrepresentation required that there had at some time been a right of rescission, not necessarily a continuing right to rescind.
An acknowledgement of non-reliance clause has become a common part of modern commercial . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Land, Torts – Other

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.246960

Golf Cafe Bars Ltd v West Yorkshire Combined Authority and Another: UTLC 27 Jan 2021

Compensation – Compulsory Purchase – Order under the Transport and Works Act 1992 – compensation for temporary and permanent acquisition – operations in breach of leasehold covenants – nominal quantifiable loss during temporary occupation – compensation for permanent loss based on hope value element – pre-reference professional costs – compensation awarded at pounds 147,192

Citations:

[2021] UKUT 16 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Transport and Works Act 1992

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.657382

Hotgroup v RBS: 2010

Judges:

Charles Hollander QC

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 1241

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – BDW Trading Ltd v Opticlife Ltd ChD 29-Jul-2010
The seller of some apartments sought a declaration that it had correctly forfeited a deposit paid to it after the buyer defendant failed to comply with a completion notice. The defendant said that the calimant was itself in repudiatory breach, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Contract

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.424202

Opie v Godolphin: 1720

One who lends money on a security, which he is advised by a lawyer to be a good one, yet if it proves otherwise, and he has notice, that another made title to it, he must deliver up all the writings relating to it, but not the mortgage deed, for there may be covenants in that for payment of the money.

Citations:

[1720] EngR 28, (1720) Prec Ch 548, (1720) 24 ER 247 (A)

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.390454

Charles v Jones: 1887

Citations:

[1887] Ch 544

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Buhr v Barclays Bank plc CA 26-Jan-2001
The bank took a second charge over property, but failed to get it registered. The chargors fell into debt and bankruptcy, and the property was sold. The proceeds were used to discharge the first charge, and then repay unsecured creditors. The bank . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.375205

Haghighi: LT 20 Oct 2006

LT COSTS – application for modification of restrictive covenant – application by applicant to dismiss proceedings – application for modification dismissed – applicant to pay objectors’ costs on standard basis – Law of Property Act 1925, s84

Citations:

[2006] EWLands LP – 13 – 2005

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 84

Land, Costs

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.246691

Dart JL: LT 8 Aug 2006

LT RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS – proposal to modify occupancy restriction imposed by an agreement under section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 – practical benefits of substantial value or advantage – implied agreement – application dismissed – Law of Property Act 1925, s84(1), grounds (aa), (b) and (c)

Judges:

Francis FRCS

Citations:

[2006] EWLands LP – 68 – 2005

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1971 52, Law of Property Act 1925 84(1)

Land, Planning

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.245448

Barnet London Borough Council; Re: Land at Claremont Road comprising Hendon Football Club and Football Ground: LT 10 Jul 2006

LT RESTRICTIVE COVENANT – entitlement to benefit – preliminary issue – whether covenant impliedly annexed to land – surrounding circumstances – held no entitlement – objectors not admitted.
The landowners sought the discharge of a restrictive covenant requiring land to be used as a Public Park or Recreation Ground or meadow. Four hundred locals objected. The court set the applicants into several categories according to the evidence they presented of title to object.
Held: the terms of the covenant, both in themselves and when constructed in the light of the indenture as a whole, are clear. The covenant was made with the Company without reference to its retained land. In what appeared to be a carefully drafted deed, this provision contrasted with the other provisions. A positive inference was to be drawn that the intention was that the covenant should be a purely personal one, reserving the Handley Page the power of release.

Citations:

[2006] EWLands LP – 75 – 2004

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 84(3A)

Citing:

Cited – Smith and Snipes Hall Farm Ltd v River Douglas Catchment Board CA 1949
Benefit of Covenant Ran with Land
In 1938, landowners and the Catchment Board agreed that the Board would make good and maintain the banks of a stream, with the landowners contributing to the cost. The agreement was not said to be for the benefit of the landowner’s successors in . .
Cited – J Sainsbury plc v Enfield London Borough Council 1989
Land had been conveyed in 1894, the purchaser covenanting with the vendor (alone). The fact that the vendor retained other land was apparent from other parts of the conveyance, but the covenant was not expressed to be for the benefit of that land. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.245447

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 had served notices on the landowners to remove gates.
Held: The status of the land had been conclusively determined since the original hearing as a public bridleway. The court therefore made a declaration accordingly. Any substantial non-temporary interference with a public right of way was a nuisance. The gate was such and an order was made for the removal of one. The remaining two gates should remain only untl a full trial of the particular issues regarding their status.

Judges:

Lawrence Collins J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 2554 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Highways Act 1980 116, Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Seekings v Clarke 1961
Lord Parker CJ said: ‘It is perfectly clear that anything which substantially prevents the public from having free access over the whole of the highway which is not purely temporary in nature is an unlawful obstruction’. . .
Cited – Lake District Special Planning Board, ex parte Bernstein 3-Feb-1982
A diversion of a footpath must be along an entirely new path, and not an existing way. . .
Cited – Regina v Surrey County Council, ex parte Send Parish Council 1979
Under the section, the highway authority has duties when informed by a parish council that a highway has been unlawfully stopped. The highway authority must, ‘unless satisfied that the representations are incorrect’, take proper proceedings . .
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.245416

Dobbin: LT 30 Aug 2006

LT RESTRICTIVE COVENANT – modification – building scheme – proposed bungalow – reasonable user – public interest – whether practical benefits secured – substantiality – effect of scheme – application refused – Law of Property Act 1925, s84(1)(aa), (b) and (c)

Judges:

Trott FRICS

Citations:

[2006] EWLands LP – 59 – 2004

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 84(1)(aa), (b) and (c)

Land

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.245449

IDC Group Ltd and others v Clark and others: CA 25 Jun 1991

Sir Nicolas Browne-Wilkinson VC reviewed the cases about constructive trust claims summarising the result as follows: ‘That decision [Lyus] was approved by the Court of Appeal in Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold . . The Court of Appeal put what I hope is the quietus to the heresy that a mere licence creates an interest in land. They also put the quietus to the heresy that parties to a contractual licence necessarily become constructive trustees. They also held . . that the mere fact that property is sold subject to a contractual licence is not sufficient to create a constructive trust. They held . . that the mere fact that somebody has purchased with notice of a claim does not give rise to a constructive trust. However, the Court of Appeal plainly considered that Lyus v Prowsa was rightly decided.
The result, as it seems to me, is that in the normal case a conveyance of land subject to or with notice of prior incumbrances or prior interests will not operate so as to make enforceable under a constructive trust such prior incumbrances or interests which would otherwise be unenforceable.
However, in certain circumstances equity raises a constructive trust because it is unconscionable for the person having received such property not to give effect to the terms on which he received it. As the Court of Appeal said, and with respect I would agree:
‘In matters relating to the title to land certainty is of prime importance. We do not think it desirable that constructive trusts of land should be imposed in reliance on inferences from slender materials.’
It is important always to bear in mind that it is of the greatest importance that the title to land should be capable of being ascertained in accordance with well-known procedures. To raise constructive trusts which do not fit into the conveyancing machinery currently operating, thereby giving rise to liabilities of which purchasers might otherwise not be aware, is a dangerous course to pursue.
In my judgment, the decision in Ashburn Anstalt does not warrant the creation of a constructive trust unless there are very special circumstances showing that the transferee of the property undertook a new liability to give effect to provisions for the benefit of third parties. It is the conscience of the transferee which has to be affected and it has to be affected in a way which gives rise to an obligation to meet the legitimate expectations of the third party.’

Judges:

Sir Nicolas Browne-Wilkinson VC

Citations:

[1991] EWCA Civ 3, [1992] 1 EGLR 186

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Halsall v Brizell ChD 1957
Land in Liverpool was sold in building plots. The vendors retained the roads and sewers and a promenade and sea wall. A separate deed of covenant of 1851 between the vendors and the owners of the plots which had by then been sold, recited that the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Davies and Others v Jones and Another CA 9-Nov-2009
The parties contracted for the sale of land for development. The contract allowed for the costs of environmental remediation, but disputed the true figure set by the eventual builder and retained. The court now heard argument about whether the sum . .
Cited – Chaudhary v Yavuz CA 22-Nov-2011
The court was asked ‘whether and if so how an easement arising informally and not protected by any entry at the Land Registry can be effective against a purchaser of the land over which the easement would be exercised.’ The parties respectively . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Trusts

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.245296

McAuley v Bristol City Council: CA 25 Jun 1991

The Council appealed against a finding of liability to the plaintiff tenant who slipped and fell in the back garden of the tenanted house.

Judges:

Neill, Ralph Gibson LJJ

Citations:

[1991] EWCA Civ 2, [1992] QB 134, [1992] 1 All ER 749, (1991) 23 HLR 586, [1991] 45 EG 155, [1991] 3 WLR 968, [1991] 2 EGLR 64, 89 LGR 931, [1992] 1 All ER 749

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Defective Premises Act 1972 4

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Hopwood v Cannock Chase District Council CA 1975
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Land

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.245297

BP Properties Ltd v Buckler: CA 31 Jul 1987

The putative owner of the paper title wrote to the defendant who occupied the relevant property in October 1974 as follows: ‘Since we wish to help you as much as possible we are prepared to allow you to remain in occupation of the house and garden rent free for as long as you may wish and for the rest of your life if you so desire. I am pleased accordingly to confirm that we will not require you to give up possession during your lifetime or until such time as you may choose no longer to live in the house and we have given the necessary instructions so that no proceedings will be commenced until you personally no longer live there.’
There was a pending warrant for possession against the defendant. Her solicitors produced the letter written to her from the paper title owner to the County Court judge who stayed the warrant as a result. They sought her instructions on the letter but before obtaining a response the then paper owner withdrew the warrant. The defendant never did respond to the letter by accepting or rejecting it. She remained in possession until her death some nine years later. The paper title owner contended subsequently that no claim for adverse possession could arise after October 1974 because by then the defendant was occupying the land pursuant to a licence and so her possession was not adverse. The licence was unilateral in the sense that it was not one to which she had expressly assented, but it was contended that this would make no difference.
Held: Where a person claimed to have obtained a title by adverse possesssion, it did not matter if the person in possession did not know that his or her possession was lawful; the lawful title would still preclude the person with the paper title from evicting the person in possession.
Dillon LJ said: ‘The claim that a unilateral licence can stop time running is a new one. It may be of some general importance in that it would enable a person who is not prepared to incur the cost of bringing proceedings for possession or of enforcing a possession order to keep his title alive for very many years until it suits him to evict. It might be thought that for title to be kept alive in this way was contrary to the policy of the statute as exemplified by section 13 of the 1939 Act which reproduced earlier statutory provision to the same effect and prevented any right of action to recover land being preserved by formal entry or continual claim . . It may be that the result would have been different if Mrs Buckler had, assuming she had learnt of the letters, plainly told BP Properties Limited that she did not accept the letters and maintained her claims to be already the owner of the property. She, however, did not do that. She accepted her solicitor’s advice that, as the warrant for possession had been withdrawn, she should do nothing while the 12-year period from the date of possession order expired . . Whether BP Properties could or could not in law in the absence of consideration have sought to determine in her lifetime the licence, they did not in fact seek to do so. Had they sought to do so they would in the absence of any repudiation of the letters by Mrs Buckler have had to have given Mrs Buckler a reasonable time to quit, as with any licensee. The nature of Mrs Buckler’s possession after receipt of the letters cannot be decided just by looking at what was locked up in her own mind. It must depend even more on this aspect of the case, on the position as seen from the standpoint of the person with the paper title. What could that person have done? The rule that possession is not adverse if it can be referred to a lawful title applies even if the person in possession did not know of the lawful title. The lawful title would still preclude the person with the paper title from evicting the person in possession.
So far as Mrs Buckler was concerned, even though she did not ‘accept’ the terms of the letter, BP Properties Limited would in the absence of any repudiation by her of the two letters have been bound to treat her as in possession as licensee on the terms of the letters. They could not have evicted her (if they could have done so at all) without determining the licence. I can see no escape therefore from the conclusion that, whether she liked it or not, from the time of her receipt of the letters Mrs Buckler was in possession of the farmhouse and garden by the licence of BP Properties Limited.’

Judges:

Dillon LJ, Mustill LJ, Sir Edward Eveleigh

Citations:

[1987] EWCA Civ 2, (1988) 55 PCandR 337

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Ofulue and Another v Bossert CA 29-Jan-2008
The claimants appealed an order finding that the defendant had acquired their land by adverse possession. They said that the defendant had asserted in defence to possession proceedings that they were tenants, and that this contradicted an intent to . .
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 – 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.

Land, Limitation

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.245288

Moto Hospitality Ltd v Highways Agency: LT 28 Jul 2006

LT COMPENSATION – injurious affection – Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 s 10 – preliminary issue – motorway service area – junction alterations affecting trade – whether damage suffered as result of ‘works’ – whether particular damage suffered – held claim for compensation may lie.

Citations:

[2006] EWLands LCA – 122 – 2005

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 10

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Ocean Leisure Ltd v Westminster City Council LT 31-Dec-2003
LT COMPENSATION – injurious affection – hoardings erected in street during construction works outside shop premises – preliminary issue – whether claim under Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 s 10 valid – held . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Damages

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.244522

Norman and Another v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: Admn 5 Jul 2006

The applicants sought to have quashed an order by the Council confirming a footpath. Having concluded that the decision of an inspector confirming a modification order was flawed, the Court said that it should be quashed and the matter remitted for reconsideration. Leading counsel for the objectors thereupon submitted that the consequence of the decision was that the order was quashed; that there was no order and that the council had to consider whether to start again. Counsel for the Secretary of State did not suggest otherwise.

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1881 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

Cited by:

Cited – Jones v Welsh Assembly Government Admn 15-Dec-2008
The County Council had made an order under section 53, establishing a footpath over the claimant’s land. The land owner now appealed. The court had previously quashed the inspector’s decision on the basis that he had not allowed for the interruption . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.244124

Moon v Garrett and others: CA 28 Jul 2006

The defendant appealed a finding that he was liable for the personal injury to the claimant. The claimant was employed to collect blocks and bring them to the site. He fell and injured himself.
Held: The defendant, the occupier of the land, was liable. The claimant was clearly a person intended to be protected by the legislation.

Citations:

Times 01-Sep-2006, [2006] EWCA Civ 1121, [2007] ICR 95

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Construction (Health Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996 (1996 No 1592) 6(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Davies v Forrett and Others QBD 23-Jun-2015
The claimant had been very severely injured as a passenger in a car (uninsured) which had attempted an overtaking manouvre past three cars. One pulled out, and the car in which he was a passenger swerved off the road and crashed. Damages were now . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Construction, Land

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.243996

Sugarman v Porter and others: ChD 8 Mar 2006

The claimant said that his land was free of restrictive covenants in favour of the land owned by the defendants, and requested a declaration to that effect.

Judges:

Peter Smith J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 331 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Seymour Road (Southampton) Ltd v Williams and Others ChD 29-Jan-2010
The claimant sought a declaration that restrictive covenants imposed in 1896 affecting its land were no longer effective.
Held: The declaration was granted. Under the 1881 Act (as opposed to the 1925 Act) covenants were not automatically . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.238900

In re Draper’s Conveyance: 1969

A severance of the joint tenancy had been effected by the service of a summons under section 17 of the 1882 Act and an affidavit in support, asking for an order that the former matrimonial home be sold and the proceeds of sale distributed in accordance with the parties’ respective interests therein.

Judges:

Plowman J

Citations:

[1969] 1 Ch 486

Statutes:

Married Women’s Property Act 1882 17

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.188833

Horvath, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: Admn 21 Jul 2006

The claimant sought to challenge the validity of the 2004 Regulations whereby the payment under the Single Payment Scheme was reduced because of the existence of a public right of way across the land.
Held: ‘there are cogent arguments for the validity of the crucial paragraphs of the England Regulations. My preliminary view is that the addition of the words ‘and environmental’ were intended to widen the scope of the minimum requirements. The reference in Annex IV to ‘habitats’ is significant. It appears to me that visible rights of way can properly be described as ‘landscape features’. ‘ The question was to be referred to the European Court of Justice.

Judges:

Crane J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1833 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Common Agricultural Policy Single Payment and Support Schemes (Cross Compliance) (England) Regulations 2004, Rights of Way Act 1980

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v International Stock Exchange, ex parte Else (1982) Ltd CA 1993
The court gave guidance on the circumstances under which questions should be referred to the European Court of Justice. . .
Cited – Gomez de la Cruz Talegon v Commission ECFI 9-Feb-2000
Europa Officials – Request for reclassification in grade – Objection of inadmissibility – Material new fact – Admissibility. . .
Cited – European Parliament v Council of the European Union 162111 ECJ 25-Feb-1999
ECJ Regulations on the protection of forests against atmospheric pollution and fire – Legal basis – Article 43 of the EC Treaty – Article 130s of the EC Treaty – Parliament’s prerogatives.
Cited – Etablissements Armand Mondiet SA v Armement Islais SARL ECJ 24-Nov-1993
Europa Where the high seas are concerned, the Community has the same rule-making authority in matters within its jurisdiction as that conferred under international law on the State whose flag the vessel is flying . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agriculture, Land, European

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.243368

Sinclair Gardens Investments Kensington Ltd v Eardley Crescent No 75 Ltd: LT 7 Jul 2006

LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – collective enfranchisement – preliminary issue – Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 Section 24 – Leasehold Valuation Tribunals (Procedure) (England) Regulations 2003 – Application by nominee purchaser under Section 24(1) to Leasehold Valuation Tribunal – Application identifying price and costs as terms in dispute but omitting to identify any other matters as being in dispute – LVT determining purchase price and costs – subsequently nominee purchaser seeking to restore the application before LVT for determination of further matters in dispute (namely the terms of the proposed conveyance including in particular a proposed indemnity clause) – whether LVT has jurisdiction to allow the restoration of the application for this purpose.

Citations:

[2006] EWLands LRA – 77 – 2005

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.243177

Dutton and Another v Davis and Another: CA 4 May 2006

The appellant had transferred his property with the intention that it should be subject to a right on his part to repurchase it. He now said the sale was in practice merely a charge.
Held: The appeal failed. The legal nature of the transaction was in accordance with the form of the transaction and did not involve the grant of a security interest which could be redeemed. ‘Courts of equity have traditionally been careful to endeavour to ensure that something which is in reality a transaction by way of loan upon security, with a conveyance to a lender by way of security for the repayment of money, is not wrongly characterised as an absolute conveyance. Historically a mortgage of a freehold estate was effected by a conveyance, subject to a legal right of redemption, which might well be expressed in limited form; equity attached to that or imposed upon it an equitable right of redemption which was much more general. ‘

Judges:

Chadwick LJ, Thomas LJ, Lloyd LJ

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 694

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Re Curtain Dream plc 1990
The company sought to finance its stock. It first sold it to a finance company, then repurchased it on terms including a retention of title clause.
Held: The whole transaction was, in its nature, a charge on the company’s assets, and as such . .
Cited – Lloyds and Scottish Finance Ltd v Cyril Lord Carpet Sales Limited HL 1992
The appellants were a Northern Irish company, which had entered liquidation, and the liquidator of that company. The respondent was a finance house. The company entered into a ‘block discounting’ agreement, which involved assigning customer credit . .
Cited – Welsh Development Agency v Export Finance Co Ltd CA 1992
The court was asked whether a transaction relating to goods between an exporter and the defendant, as a financier, associated with sales by the exporter to third-party purchasers, amounted to a true sale by the exporter to the defendant or was . .

Cited by:

Cited – Brighton and Hove City Council v Audus ChD 26-Feb-2009
The claimant was the proprietor of a fourth legal charge on a title. It sought a declaration that a second charge in favour of the defendant was void as a clog on the proprietor’s equity of redemption. An advance secured by a first charge, also in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Equity

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.242277