Category: Land

Rolls v Miller: CA 1884

The court was asked as to the effect of a restrictive covenant requiring a house not to be used for trade or business. Lindley LJ said that the dictionary meanings of the term ‘business’ embrace ‘almost anything which is an occupation, as distinguished from a pleasure – anything which is an occupation or duty which requires attention is a business.’

Judges:

Lindley LJ

Citations:

(1884) 27 ChD 71

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Jarvis Homes Ltd v Marshall and Another CA 6-Jul-2004
An intended new road was going to be the access way for 12 new houses. Part of a restrictive covenant provided that the covenantors and their successors would not ‘use or permit or suffer to be used the land hereby conveyed or any part thereof or . .
Cited – Town Investments Ltd v Department of the Environment HL 2-Mar-1977
The House considered the application of Orders made under the Counter-Inflation Acts 1972 and 1973 to premises let initially to the Minister of Works and then to the Secretary of State for the Environment for occupation by civil servants. Each of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.242397

Watts v Kelson: CA 1870

Property containing cattle sheds was sold, together with an implied right to the supply of water along pipes leading from a tank on the vendor’s land. The purchaser demolished the cattle sheds and erected cottages in their place.
Held: A drainage easement is ‘continous and apparent’. ‘[W]hat passed to [the purchaser] was a right to have the water flow in the accustomed manner through the [servient] premises to his premises, and . . when it arrived at his premises he could do what he liked with it, and . . he would not lose his right to the water by any alteration he might make in his premises.’

Citations:

(1870) 6 Ch App 166

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Land

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.194010

Wimbledon and Putney Commons Conservators v Dixon: CA 1875

A prescriptive right of way had been enjoyed in connection with the use of the dominant land for agricultural purposes, which had included enlarging the farmhouse and rebuilding a cottage. The dominant owner could not use the way for carting materials for the purpose of effecting a residential development on his land.
James LJ said: ‘We have then to consider whether the character of the [dominant] property can be so changed as substantially to increase or alter the burden upon the servient tenement. I was strongly of opinion that it was the settled law of this country that no such change in the character of a dominant tenement could be made as would increase the burden on the servient tenement.’ and ‘[I]f a right of way to a field be proved by evidence of user, however general, for whatever purpose qua field, the person who is the owner of that field cannot from that say, I have a right to turn that field into a manufactory, or into a town, and then use the way for the purpose of the manufactory or town so built.’ (Baggallay JA) [Y]ou must neither increase the burden on the servient tenement nor substantially change the nature of the user.’ (Mellish LJ), ‘Assuming that it is made out that [the dominant owner] and his tenants have used this way, not exclusively for agricultural purposes, but for all purposes for which they wanted it, in the state in which the land was at the time of the supposed grant – at the time when the way first began – and assuming that there has been no material alteration in the premises since that time, does that entitle [the dominant owner] to alter substantially and increase the burden on the servient tenement by building any number of houses he pleases on this property and giving to the persons who inhabit those houses the right to use the way for all purposes connected with the houses?’

Judges:

James LJ, Baggallay JA, Mellish LJ

Citations:

(1875) 1 Ch D 362

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Williams v James 1867
A right of way had been granted over the plaintiff’s land for the benefit of ‘Nine acre field’ in its ordinary use as a field. Hay grown on both Nine acre field and the adjoining ‘Parrott’s land’ had been mowed and stored on Nine acre field in the . .

Cited by:

Cited – McAdams Homes Ltd v Robinson and Another CA 27-Feb-2004
The defendant blocked the line of a sewer. The claimant alleged that it had an easement and sought the cost of building the alternative pipe. The question to be answered was ‘Where an easement is granted by implication on the sale of a property, . .
Applied – Milner’s Safe Company Limited v Great Northern and City Railway Company ChD 1907
A right of way had been impliedly granted in favour of a number of terraced houses over a passage running to the back of those houses, which were used at the time of grant for residential and warehouse use. A right to use the passageway for an . .
Applied – RPC Holdings Limited v Rogers 1953
A prescriptive right of way had been enjoyed in connection only with agricultural use of the dominant land, which was a field.
Held: The way could not be used in connection with the use of the field as a caravan and camping site. Harman J . .
Cited – British Railways Board v Glass CA 1965
An easement arising by prescription involves a fictional lost grant. The court considered the extent of user of an easement in relation to a prescriptive right of way for the benefit of land used as a caravan site: ‘A right to use a way for this . .
Cited – Giles v County Building Constructors (Hertford) Limited ChD 1971
A right of way had arisen by prescription in favour of land which had two detached dwelling houses on it.
Held: The right of way could continue to be used, even after the two houses had been demolished and replaced by a three-storey block of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Leading Case

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.194014

Hutton v Esher Urban District Council: CA 1973

(reversed) The local authority sought to acquire the plaintiff’s bungalow by compulsory powers which allowed it to purchase land required to construct a new sewer.
Held: By the 1978 Act, the word land was to be read to include buildings upon the land, and this was a correct purchase.

Citations:

[1973] 2 All ER 1123

Statutes:

Interpretation Act 1978

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Hutton v Esher Urban District Council ChD 1972
The council sought to build a sewer. It had power to acquire land for this purpose, and sought to acquire the plaintiff’s bungalow. He argued that the word land did not include a building on land. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government, Land

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.200609

Vale v Armstrong, Armstrong: ChD 21 May 2004

The claimant sought to set aside a transfer of his house to the defendants made at an undervalue and under an enduring power of attorney, who had charged it to raise money for their business. He had received independent advice.
Held: The transaction was disadvantageous to the claimant and there was therefore a presumption of undue influence. However there was also evidence of independent advice etc to rebut that presumption, but ‘it by no means follows that prior legal advice rebuts the presumption.’
The independent advice had failed to bring home the true disadvantages of the transaction to the claimant. The defendant failed to rebut the presumption, and it was set aside.

Judges:

Mr. Justice Evans-Lombe

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 1160 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – CIBC Mortgages Plc v Pitt and Another HL 21-Oct-1993
Mrs Pitt resisted an order for possession of the house saying that she had signed the mortgage only after misrepresentations by and the undue infuence of her husband who was acting as the bank’s agent.
Held: A bank was not put on enquiry as to . .
Cited – Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge (No 2); Barclays Bank plc v Harris; Midland Bank plc v Wallace, etc HL 11-Oct-2001
Wives had charged the family homes to secure their husband’s business borrowings, and now resisted possession orders, claiming undue influence.
Held: Undue influence is an equitable protection created to undo the effect of excess influence of . .
Cited – Cheese v Thomas CA 24-Aug-1993
A transaction entered into was manifestly disadvantageous to him. After a finding of undue influence, losses on the sale of a property are to be shared by both parties, so as to restore the parties to their original positions as near as might be. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Undue Influence, Agency

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.197075

Severn Trent Water Ltd v Barnes: CA 13 May 2004

The water company appealed an award of damages after it had been found to have laid a water main under the claimant’s land without his knowledge or consent. The court had awarded restitutionary damages.
Held: The judge fell into error in awarding the exercise the judge sought to perform by awarding the additional sum of andpound;1560 was to compensate for the financial advantage to Severn Trent of using the main without having paid an appropriate sum by way of compensation during a period of 3 years up to the time (July 1995) when the judge considered that the matter would have been settled had Mr Barnes been properly advised. He had no right to an account of profits as well as a sum to compensate him for his loss. Award reduced accordingly.
Potter LJ said: ‘It is of course the position that in cases of trespass of this kind there is no right to a share in, or account of, profits in any conventional sense. The only relevance of the defendant’s profits is that they are likely to be a helpful reference point for the court when seeking to fix upon a fair price for a notional licence.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Potter Lord Justice Jonathan Parker And Sir Swinton Thomas

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 570, [2004] 2 EGLR 95, [2004] 26 EG 194, [2005] RVR 181

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Water Industry Act 1991 159

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Stoke City Council v W and J Wass 1998
The court decsribed the ‘user principle’ for awarding damages for inteference with land: ‘It is an established principle concerning the assessment of damages that a person who has wrongfully used another’s property without causing the latter any . .
Cited – HM Attorney General v Blake (Jonathan Cape Ltd third Party intervening) HL 3-Aug-2000
Restitutionary Claim against Pofits from Breach
The author had written his book in breach of his duty of confidence. Having signed the Official Secrets Act, he accepted a contractual private law duty. After conviction as a spy, the publication of the book was in breach of the undertaking by not . .
Cited – Martin v Porter 1839
Trespass to land – way-leave – unauthorised mining. . .
Cited – Jegon v Vivian 1871
Unauthorised mining of land – measure of damages.
Held: Although the value of his land may not have been diminished by the trespass, the plaintiff recovered damages equivalent to what he would have received if he had been paid for a wayleave. . .
Cited – Whitwham v Westminster Brymbo Coal and Coke Co CA 24-Jun-1896
Common law damages for the misuse of property involved an award of a sum equivalent to the price or hire that a reasonable person would pay for such use, even if the owner would not himself actually have been using the property. This case involved . .
Cited – Carr-Saunders v Dick McNeill Associates 1986
The claim was for interference with the plaintiff’s right to light.
Held: There is a need to approach infringements of easements of light with flexibility. The plaintiff’s subjective views as to the loss of light were not to the point. When . .
Cited – Bracewell v Appleby ChD 1975
The defendant wrongly used and asserted a right of way over a private road to a house which he had built.
Held: To restrain the defendant from using the road would render the new house uninhabitable. The court refused an injunction on the . .
Cited – Wrotham Park Estate Ltd v Parkside Homes Ltd ChD 1974
55 houses had been built by the defendant, knowingly in breach of a restrictive covenant, imposed for the benefit of an estate, and in the face of objections by the claimant.
Held: The restrictive covenant not to develop other than in . .
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 – Devenish Nutrition Ltd and others v Sanofi-Aventis SA (France) and others ChD 19-Oct-2007
The claimant sought damages for the losses it had suffered as a result of price fixing by the defendant companies in the vitamin market. The European Commission had already fined the defendant for its involvement.
Held: In an action for breach . .
Cited – Ramzan v Brookwide Ltd CA 19-Aug-2011
The defendant had broken through into a neighbour’s flying freehold room, closed it off, and then included it in its own premises for let. It now appealed against the quantum of damages awarded. The judge had found the actions deliberate and with a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Utilities, Land, Damages

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.196772

Raja Vyricherla Narayana Gajapathiraju v Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizagapatam: PC 23 Feb 1939

Land adjoining a harbour at Vizagapatam which at that time was malarial was to be valued for compulsory purchase. The land contained a spring of clean water. The only potential purchaser of the special adaptability of the land as a water supply was the harbour authority. The High Court valued the land as partly waste and partly cultivated.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The market value of land subject to compulsory purchase should include such extra value as might be paid for the facility to collect fresh water which was generated by a spring on the land but which was presently going to waste. The value to be ascertained is not the price a ‘driven’ buyer would pay to an unwilling seller. Nor should the price be enhanced by the fact that compulsory powers have been obtained for carrying into effect a particular scheme for the profitable use of the subject land’s potentiality. The valuation must always be made as though no such powers had been obtained. But the possibility that the acquiring authority, as a willing buyer in a friendly negotiation, might be willing to pay more for land with its potentiality than without was not to be disregarded. That would not be to allow the existence of the scheme to enhance the value of the land: ‘even where the only possible purchaser of the land’s potentiality is the authority that has obtained the compulsory powers, the arbitrator in awarding compensation must ascertain to the best of his ability the price that would be paid by a willing purchaser to a willing vendor of the land with its potentiality in the same way that he would ascertain it in a case where there are several possible purchasers.’ The seller should not be regarded as disinclined to sell, nor should the buyer be regarded as under any urgent necessity to buy. ‘It must, of course, be conceded that the existence of the scheme must not be allowed to enhance the price, if by ‘scheme’ is meant the fact that compulsory powers of acquisition have been obtained for the purpose of carrying into effect a particular scheme for the profitable use of the potentiality. The valuation must always be made as though no such power had been acquired, and the only use that can be made of the scheme is as evidence that the acquiring authority can properly be regarded as possible purchasers.’

Judges:

Lord Romer, Lord MacMillan, Sir George Rankin

Citations:

[1939] AC 302, [1939] UKPC 15, [1939] 2 All ER 317

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Citing:

Disapproved in part – In re Lucas and Chesterfield Gas and Water Board CA 1909
Land suitable for construction of a reservoir was the subject of a compulsory purchase for that purpose. The circumstances made it very unlikely that anyone other than the Water Board would have wanted, or been able, to construct the reservoir and . .

Cited by:

Cited – Waters and others v Welsh Development Agency HL 29-Apr-2004
Land was to be compulsorily purchased. A large development required the land to be used to create a nature reserve. The question was how and if at all the value of the overall scheme should be considered when assessing the compensation for this . .
Applied – Lambe v Secretary of State for War CA 1955
The acquiring authority was a sitting tenant and the compulsory purchase order related to the freehold reversion.
Held: Rule 3 was inapplicable. The marriage value which a reversion has for a sitting tenant does not clothe the land with a . .
Cited – Star Energy Weald Basin Ltd and Another v Bocardo Sa SC 28-Jul-2010
The defendant had obtained a licence to extract oil from its land. In order to do so it had to drill out and deep under the Bocardo’s land. No damage at all was caused to B’s land at or near the surface. B claimed in trespass for damages. It now . .
Cited – Multi-Link Leisure Developments Ltd v Lanarkshire Council SC 17-Nov-2010
The parties disputed the effect of an option clause in a lease, and particularly whether, when fixing the price, potential for development was to be included. The clause required the ‘full market value’ to be paid. The tenant appealed.
Held: . .
Cited – Loveridge v London Borough of Lambeth SC 3-Dec-2014
The Council had granted a weekly secure tenancy of the premises to the appellant. The Court considered the calculation of damages awarded for an unlawful eviction of a residential tenant.
Held: Section 28(1)(a) requires the basis of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Damages

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.196506

Nash v Eads: CA 1880

Sir George Jessel MR: ‘The mortgagee was not a trustee of the power of sale for the mortgagor, and if he was entitled to exercise the power, the Court could not look into his motives for so doing. If he had a right to sell on June 1, and he then said, ‘The mortgagor is a member of an old county family, and I don’t wish to turn him out of his property, and will not sell it at present,’ and then on July 1 he said, ‘I have had a quarrel with the mortgagor, and he has insulted me; I will show him no more mercy, but will sell him up at once’ – if all this was proved, the Court could not restrain the mortgagee from exercising his power of sale, except on the terms of payment of the mortgage debt. The Court could not look at the mortgagee’s motives for exercising his power. Lord Eldon had never said anything of the kind which Vice-Chancellor Stuart supposed him to have said. The Vice-Chancellor was entirely mistaken, and must have been citing the judgments to which he referred from his recollection, without looking at the reports. Of course there were some limits to the powers of the mortgagee. He, like a pledgee, must conduct the sale properly, and must sell at a fair value, and he could not sell to himself. But he was not bound to abstain from selling because he was not in urgent want of his money, or because he had a spite against the mortgagor.’.

Judges:

Sir George Jessel MR

Citations:

(1880) 25 Sol J 95

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Disapproved – Robertson v Norris 1857
A mortgage sale for purposes other than merely to recover payment of the debt was a ‘fraud on a power’. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Silven Properties Limited, Chart Enterprises Incorporated v Royal Bank of Scotland Plc, Vooght, Harris CA 21-Oct-2003
The claimants sought damages from mortgagees who had sold their charged properties as receivers. They said they had failed to sell at a proper value. They asked whether the express appointment in the mortgage of receivers as agents of the mortgagor . .
Cited – Den Norske Bank Asa v Acemex Management Company Ltd CA 7-Nov-2003
Money had been loaned for the purchase of three ships,and mortgages over the ships had been given given. The borrowers were in default, and the lender sought to arrest the vessels. The defendant argued that the way the arrest had been undertaken . .
Cited – Meretz Investments Nv and Another v ACP Ltd and others ChD 30-Jan-2006
The applicant challenged the exercise of a power of sale under a mortgage, saying that the mortgagee’s purposes included purposes not those under the mortgage. The parties had been involved in an attempted development of a penthouse.
Held: The . .
Applied – Belton v Bass CA 1922
The mortgagees of shares in a brewery wanted to a director to be able later to acquire the shares. They could not grant an option. They sold the shares to the director, as mortgagees, and lent the purchase price, interest free. The director could . .
Cited – Silven Properties Ltd and Another v Royal Bank of Scotland Plc and Others CA 21-Oct-2003
The claimants complained that the receivers appointed by the bank had failed to get the best price for properties charged to the bank and sold, in that they had failed to obtain planning permissions which would have increased the values of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.187034

Regina v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte de Rothschild: CA 1988

The court considered the use of powers of compulsory purchase of land under the Acts.
Held: ‘In answer to counsel’s submissions as to ‘special rules’, I summarise my conclusions thus. First, I do not accept that any special rules beyond the ordinary Wednesbury/Ashbridge rules fall to be applied when the court is considering a challenge to the Secretary of State’s confirmation of the compulsory purchase order. Second, however, the Secretary of State, as counsel on his behalf accepted and submitted, must be satisfied that the compulsory purchase order is justified on its merits before he can properly confirm it. He must not exercise his powers capriciously. Given the obvious importance and value to land owners of their property rights, the abrogation of those rights in the exercise of his discretionary power to confirm a compulsory purchase order would, in the absence of what he perceived to be a sufficient justification on the merits, be a course which surely no reasonable Secretary of State would take.’

Judges:

Slade LJ, Croom-Johnson LJ and Ralph Gibson LJ

Citations:

[1989] 1 All ER 933, (1988) 57 P and CR 330

Statutes:

Highways Act 1980, Highways Act 1981

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Explained – Prest v Secretary of State for Wales CA 1982
Lord Denning MR said: ‘I regard it as a principle of our constitutional law that no citizen is to be deprived of his land by any public authority against his will, unless it is expressly authorised by Parliament and the public interest decisively so . .

Cited by:

Cited – Chant v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and another Admn 1-Jul-2002
The applicant challenged an order requiring him to discontinue use of land on which were listed buildings in need of repair. The authority had concluded that compulsory purchase would not be sufficient to achieve the result required. The land owner . .
Cited – St Leger-Davey and Another v First Secretary of State and others CA 1-Dec-2004
The applicants challenged permission granted to erect mobile phone masts, saying that the operators should have made application to the County Court.
Held: the provisions referred to allowed the company to follow a county court procedure where . .
Cited – Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Wolverhampton City Council and Another SC 12-May-2010
The appellant’s land was to be taken under compulsory purchase by the Council who wished to use it to assist Tesco in the construction of a new supermarket. Tesco promised to help fund restoration of a local listed building. Sainsbury objected an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Land

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.181251

National Westminster Bank Plc, Malhan Malhan v Malhan, The Secretary of State for Consitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor: ChD 22 Apr 2004

Judges:

Vice-Chancellor, The Vice-Chancellor

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 847 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 2(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Williams and Glyn’s Bank Ltd v Boland HL 19-Jun-1980
Wife in Occupation had Overriding Interest
The wife had made a substantial financial contribution to the purchase price of the house which was registered only in her husband’s name, and charged to the bank. The bank sought possession. The wife resisted saying that she had an overriding . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Human Rights, Banking

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.195975

Collier v Kramer: CA 1 Apr 2004

Appeal from a refusal to allow an amendment to join further parties to an action by Mr Michael Collier against solicitors

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 467

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Collier v Collier CA 30-Jul-2002
Fraudulent Intent Negated Trust
The daughter claimant sought possession of business premises from her father who held them under leases. He claimed an order that the property was held in trust for him. The judge that at the time the properties were conveyed, the father had been . .

Cited by:

See Also – Collier v Collier CA 30-Jul-2002
Fraudulent Intent Negated Trust
The daughter claimant sought possession of business premises from her father who held them under leases. He claimed an order that the property was held in trust for him. The judge that at the time the properties were conveyed, the father had been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Trusts

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.195901

Nweze and Another v Nwoko: CA 29 Mar 2004

The parties had settled their dispute in an oral compromise agreement under which it was agreed that land would be sold at the best price reasonably obtainable. One now argued this was unenforceable as an agreement for the disposal of land requiring writing.
Held: The agreement could be enforced. Section 2 concerns a contract between seller and purchaser of a plot of land. That did not apply here to the settlement of a dispute.

Judges:

Lord Justice Waller, Lord Justice Sedley And Lord Justice Carnwath

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 379, Times 06-May-2004, [2004] 2 PandCR 33

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Distinguished – Jelson Ltd v Derby City Council ChD 30-Jun-1999
Agreements under the planning acts remained subject to the general law requiring formalities for contracts for the sale of land. Where two landowners had an understanding as to the expectations for the division of responsibility for provision of . .
Cited – McCausland and Another v Duncan Lawrie Ltd and Another CA 18-Jun-1996
The parties entered into a written contract for the sale of land which, in error, provided for completion on a Sunday. The parties varied the date to the Friday but did not execute a new contract which would comply with section 2(1) of the 1989 Act. . .
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 . .
Doubted – Jelson Ltd v Derbyshire County Council CA 1-Aug-1999
Section 2 of the 1989 Act had to bite at the point where a party could be compelled, in certain circumstances, which could or could not come about, to sell or dispose of an interest in land. The agreement here contained in effect an option for the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Kilcarne Holdings Ltd v Targetfollow (Birmingham) Ltd, Targetfollow Group Ltd ChD 9-Nov-2004
The defendant entered into an agreement for lease, incurring substantial obligations. When it could not meet them it sought assistance from the claimant, who now claimed to have an interest in a joint venture. The draft documentation originally . .
Cited – Orton v Collins and others ChD 23-Apr-2007
The court considered how a Part 36 offer could be treated as accepted when it involved an agreement to transfer land, because the offer and its acceptance would not operate under the 1989 Act.
Held: The agreement was enforceable. The Civil . .
Cited – Milebush Properties Ltd v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council and Others ChD 13-May-2010
The claimant sought a delaration that it had a right of way over an access road. The defendants said that the agreement fell foul of the 1989 Act.
Held: The claimant was not entitled to the declaration. Agreements under the 1990 Act are . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Contract

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.195108

Sharp v Thomson: HL 1997

A floating charge was given over the whole of a company’s property which might from time to time be ‘comprised in our property and undertaking’. The charge terms echoed the section which allows a company to create a charge ‘over all or any part of the property . . which may from time to time be comprised in its property and undertaking.’ The company had sold a flat, which was part of its property, and had delivered the relevant disposition to the purchaser. Before the purchaser’s agents recorded the disposition, however, the floating charge crystallised. The question was whether, at the time of crystallisation, the company’s rights to the flat still formed part of ‘our property and undertaking’ in terms of the charge and, by implication, in terms of the section. The Court of Session had held that the rights were caught by the floating charge.
Held: The purchasers’ appeal was allowed on the basis that the term ‘property’ in the section was not being used in any technical sense and was not intended to include the company’s bare title to the flat which the purchasers could have defeated at any moment by recording their disposition.

Judges:

Lord Jauncey, Lord Clyde

Citations:

1997 SC (HL) 66, [1997] UKHL 60, [1998] BCC 115, 1997 SC (HL) 66, 1997 SCLR 328, 1997 GWD 9-364, [1997] 1 BCLC 603, 1997 SLT 636

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Companies Act 1985 462(1)

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Appeal from – Sharp and Another v Thomson and Others IHCS 25-Jul-1995
The Plaintiff was bound by a floating charge which crystallised on the land before registration. Scots law, following Roman law, is unititular, which means that only one title of ownership is recognised in any one thing at any one time. . .

Cited by:

Distinguished – Burnett’s Trustee v Grainger and Another HL 4-Mar-2004
A flat was sold, but before the purchasers registered the transfer, the seller was sequestrated, and his trustee registered his own interest as trustee. The buyer complained that the trustee was unjustly enriched.
Held: The Act defined the . .
Cited – National Westminster Bank plc v Spectrum Plus Limited and others HL 30-Jun-2005
Former HL decision in Siebe Gorman overruled
The company had become insolvent. The bank had a debenture and claimed that its charge over the book debts had become a fixed charge. The preferential creditors said that the charge was a floating charge and that they took priority.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Banking

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.194212

Allan’s Trustes v Lord Advocate: HL 1971

The House set out the requirements for a declaration of trust. The truster must have an intention to make himself trustee of his own property and must also do something equivalent to delivery or transfer of the trust fund. The origin of trusts in Scotland is very different and English law is not a good guide.

Judges:

Lord Reid

Citations:

1971 SC (HL) 45, [1970] UKHL 7, [1970] TR 417, 1971 SLT 62

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Cited – Burnett’s Trustee v Grainger and Another HL 4-Mar-2004
A flat was sold, but before the purchasers registered the transfer, the seller was sequestrated, and his trustee registered his own interest as trustee. The buyer complained that the trustee was unjustly enriched.
Held: The Act defined the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Trusts

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.194211

Burrows v Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs: Admn 23 Jan 2004

A modification of the definitive map was sought, to widen a footpath and declare it a bridleway. The landowner had erected a notice in 1975 denying any public right of way, but the inspector had thought it of no effect.
Held: The declaration in the notice of a ‘Private Road’ was consistent with whatever rights there were being interpreted by the public as a roadway. The claim failed.

Judges:

Andrew Nichol QC J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 132 (Admin), Gazette 05-Feb-2004

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 53

Land, Local Government

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.193935

Drury v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: CA 26 Feb 2004

Trespassers occupied part of the land owned by the claimant. They now appealed agaainst an injunction preventing them unlawfully occupying any part of the claimant’s land including areas not previously occupied.
Held: It was critical to determine just what land was to be protected by the proposed order. The action was in rem and would protect the land against all-comers. As such a high standard of proof was required. If there was convincing evidence of a real danger of other land being occupied, an order might be given, but such evidence was not available here.

Judges:

Lord Justice Ward Lord Justice Mummery And Mr Justice Wilson

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 200, Times 15-Mar-2004, Gazette 25-Mar-2004, [2004] 1 WLR 1906, [2004] 2 All ER 1056

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – University of Essex v Djemal and others CA 1980
Students occupied the administrative office part of university premises. Following an order for possession of that part, they moved to a part known as Level Six. The university then sought an order for possession of the whole of its premises. Just . .
Cited – Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food v Heyman and others 1989
The respondent travellers were in wrongful occupation of an area of woodland owned by the appellant. The appellant sought an order for possession not only to that land but also for an area of woodland in its ownership two or three miles away. The . .
Cited – Regina v Wandsworth County Court ex parte Wandsworth London Borough Council 1975
Where the court grants a writ of possession requiring the bailiff to put the claimant into possession of land, in principle, the bailiff will remove all those who are on the relevant land, irrespective of whether or not they were parties to the . .
Cited – Ellis v Loftus Iron Co 1874
The pasturing of cattle must be one of the most ordinary uses of land, and strict liability for damage done by cattle enclosed on one man’s land if they escape thence into the land of another, is one of the most ancient propositions of our law. It . .
Cited – White v Mellin HL 1895
Lord Watson said: ‘Damages and injunction are merely two different forms of remedy against the same wrong; and the facts which must be proved in order to entitle a plaintiff to the first of these remedies are equally necessary in the case of the . .
Cited – Attorney-General for the Dominion of Canada v Ritchie Contracting and Supply Co Ltd HL 1919
If there has been no intrusion upon the land of the plaintiff at all then the only remedy may be a quia timet prohibitory injunction: ‘But no-one can obtain a quia timet order by merely saying ‘Timeo’; he must aver and prove that what is going on is . .
Cited – Morris v Redland Bricks Ltd HL 1969
The requirement of proof is greater for a party seeking a quia timet injunction than otherwise. Lord Upjohn said: ‘A mandatory injunction can only be granted where the plaintiff shows a very strong probability upon the facts that grave danger will . .

Cited by:

Cited – Secretary of State for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs v Meier and Others SC 1-Dec-2009
The claimant sought a possession order to recover land from trespassers. The court considered whether a possession order was available where not all the land was occupied, and it was feared that the occupiers might simply move onto a different part. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.193929

Munro and Another v Premier Associates Ltd: ChD 16 Mar 2000

Property was agreed to be sold, but the land certificate was lost. A condition was added to the contract fixing the completion date as three days after notification of receipt of the new certificate. The parties agreed a date in anticipation of the certificate being received, but the purchaser did not wish to proceed for other reasons. A completion notice was served which he challenged, saying the notice had not been given. It was held that parties to such transactions were as much bound by estoppel and waiver as otherwise. The behaviour of the parties created such and the notice was effective.

Citations:

Gazette 16-Mar-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land, Contract

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.84126

Fengate Developments (A Partnership) v The Commissioners of Customs and Excise: ChD 6 Feb 2004

Judges:

The Hon Mr Justice Evans-Lombe

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 152 (Ch), [2004] STC 772

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed to – Fengate Developments (A Partnership) v The Commissioners of Customs and Excise CA 1-Dec-2004
Land was transferred by a partnership to one of the partners and his wife. The consideration stated in the transfer was andpound;125,000, but each transferee had paid a similar sum into the partnership account. The respondents said that VAT should . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Fengate Developments (A Partnership) v The Commissioners of Customs and Excise CA 1-Dec-2004
Land was transferred by a partnership to one of the partners and his wife. The consideration stated in the transfer was andpound;125,000, but each transferee had paid a similar sum into the partnership account. The respondents said that VAT should . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, Land

Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.192661

Bath and North Somerset District Council v Nicholson: ChD 22 Feb 2002

The defendant occupied a house belonging to the claimant Council as a squatter. He undertook various improvements, on occasion assisted by the Council. There were then protracted and sporadic negotiations for a lease between 1982 and 1988 but no lease was agreed. Nothing then happened for three years. There was then some occasional contact but in 2000 the Council took possession proceedings and the defendant counterclaimed for adverse possession.
Held: There was no adverse possession because there was permission to occupy the property during the pendency of the negotiations for the lease. Apart from the overt acts of assistance given by the Council, the continuation of negotiations for the lease while the defendant was in possession constituted a tacit acceptance by the Council of that possession. Kim Lewison QC added: ‘Where a person is in possession of land pending negotiation for the grant of an interest in land, it is a natural inference to draw that the owner permits him to remain there at least until the negotiations have irretrievably broken down.’
and: ‘In my judgment, the Council did tacitly or impliedly give Mr Nicholson permission to continue to occupy the lodge at least during the pendency of the negotiations for a lease.’ In his view the licence probably did not end until a later stage: ‘I find therefore that from 1984 at the latest, when the Council installed the new drain and provided the Elsan closet, until at least the middle of 1988, when negotiations ground to a halt, Mr Nicholson’s possession was with the Council’s permission and hence was not adverse possession. Indeed I think that his possession would have continued to be permissive until the Council told him that it was not. Mr Grattan’s efforts to ‘rationalise (not terminate)’ Mr Nicholson’s occupation confirms the permissive nature of it.’

Judges:

Kim Lewison QC

Citations:

Unreported, 22 February 2002

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Land

Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.517495

Mussen v Van Diemen’s Land Company: ChD 1938

Land was to be sold in stages to the purchaser.
Held: Specific performance, with or without compensation, would be ordered at the suit of a purchaser wherever possible, so long as he was able and willing to complete. Farwell J said : ‘There are no doubt cases where there has been a failure to pay the instalments and to complete the contract, and the purchaser has then come forward and said: ‘I am here and now ready and willing to complete the contract and to pay the price originally stipulated by the contract and to carry out its terms,’ and then the Court has said that it is inequitable and against conscience that the vendor should refuse specific performance and claim to retain the money already paid. That is because the Court has said that if the plaintiff is willing to carry out his contract, notwithstanding the fact that temporarily at any rate he was unable to do so, if he is willing and able to carry out his contract, it being the primary intention of the parties that the sale should take place, it would be against conscience for the defendant to say: ‘I will not give effect to the primary intention of the parties, but I will refuse to complete, and I will retain the money which has been paid to me.”

Judges:

Farwell J

Citations:

[1938] Ch 253

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Considered – Stockloser v Johnson CA 1954
Romer LJ said that, in the absence of pressure or duress, or other vitiating elements, there was no jurisdiction to provide for relief against forfeiture in the event of the purchaser’s default in contracts other than those relating to land.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Contract

Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.517568

Churston Golf Club Ltd v Haddock: CA 3 Apr 2019

‘ . . appeal by Churston Golf Club Limited (‘the Golf Club’) against an order of Birss J dated 23 February 2018 dismissing their appeal against the earlier order of HH Judge Carr dated 8 December 2017 who held that the Golf Club is under a positive obligation to erect and maintain a substantial stock-proof fence, wall or hedge along the boundary between its property and that of the claimant, Mr Haddock. The appeal requires us to consider two issues: (1) whether the provisions of clause 2 of a conveyance of the Golf Club’s land to the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the County Borough of Torbay (‘the Old Council’) on 20 December 1972 falls to be construed simply as a covenant to fence or rather, as Mr Haddock contends, as the creation of an easement of fencing in favour of Mr Haddock’s property as the dominant tenement; and (2) if the latter whether, as the courts below have held, it is possible to create such an easement by express grant.’

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Civ 544

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.635247

Fearon and Another v The Environment Agency Re Tickenham Mill: UTLC 29 Mar 2019

COMPENSATION – Water Resources Act 1991 – the Upper Land Yeo – artificial watercourse – whether the raising of penning boards at a weir during the months of December to April amounted to an interference with Mill owners right to natural flow of water – Held – the natural flow was with the penning boards raised – no interference – claim for compensation dismissed.

Citations:

[2019] UKUT 97 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Water Resources Act 1991

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.635205

Brand and Another v Philip Lund (Consultants) Ltd: ChD 18 Jul 1989

The plaintiffs objected to the transport of wood from the defendant’s neighbouring land by lorry along an accessway to the plaintiff’s land. They said the defendants had no right of vehicular access. The defendants asserted a public vehicular highway.
Held: The court rejected the argument that a public right of way may only exist from one public place or highway to another: ‘it does not have to be shown that it is normally used to go from one end to the other. It may normally be used by people going from either end to and from premises fronting on to it and less frequently used by persons traversing its whole length. The user necessary to establish a right of way is to be considered separately from the way itself.’
This was an ancient vehicular highway used from time immemorial along the line of Ramscote Lane.

Judges:

Paul Baker QC HHJ

Citations:

[1989] EWHC 2 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Highways Act 1980

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Attorney-General v Antrobus ChD 1905
The owner of Stonehenge had enclosed the monument by fencing for its protection. The Attorney-General wished to remove the fencing in order to keep the place open so that the public could visit it.
Held: The court rejected a suggestion that . .
Cited – The Marquis of Stafford v Coyney 1827
Where a land-owner suffered the public to use, for several years, a road through his estate for all purposes, except that of carrying coals : Held, that this was either a limited dedication of the road to the public or no dedication at all, but only . .
Cited – Folkestone Corporation v Brockman HL 1914
A public right of way was claimed. It was argued that, in the absence of evidence of facts inconsistent with a dedication of the pathway, the jury were obliged to make such a finding.
Held: The House rejected this submission. User was no more . .
Cited – Beckett (Alfred F) v Lyons 1967
A claim was made that the inhabitants of the County Palatine of Durham had the right to take coal from the seashore.
Held: Dedication of a public right must be to the public at large or a sufficiently large section of the public at large and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.517379

Fraser and Fraser v Canterbury Diocesan Board of Finance Integrated Services Programme: CA 28 Jan 2004

The claimants sought a reversion of land conveyed under the 1841 Act to trustees. The defendants (‘DBF’) as succesors to the trustees argued that by extending the range of pupils in the school, the trustees acquired a title independent of and adverse to the claimants.
Held: The DBF succeeded. The judge had found that the land had been used in breach of trust. the school had ceased to be used solely for the purposes set out in the trust deed. It had come to be used for a new and wider purpose, the provision of a school for all-comers (with no finding that priority was given to qualifying persons). The judge then, inconsistently with his own findings, treated the wider purpose as two separate purposes. Arden LJ: ‘ . . the fact that a breach or breaches of trust have occurred does not necessarily mean that the authorised purpose has ceased to be the purpose for which the school is used.’ but ‘Nor do I accept the submission that the construction which I place on section 2 makes the trustees’ title precarious. It simply means that the trustees must adhere to purposes permitted by the terms of the trust.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Potter Mr Justice Wilson Lady Justice Arden

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 15

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

School Sites Act 1841 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Fraser and Another v Canterbury Diocesan Board of Finance and Another Chd 14-May-2003
The claimants sought to assert that land acquired under the 1841 Act reverted to them on its ceasing to be used for the purposes of a school. Lewison J summarised the evidence: ‘An analysis of the school registers for 1931 to 1947 shows that the . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Fraser and Another v Canterbury Diocesan Board of Finance and others HL 27-Oct-2005
Land had been acquired by a deed under the 1841 Act, but had in 1995 ceased to be used as a school ‘for the education of children and adults of the labouring manufacturing and other poorer classes . . And for no other purpose ‘. Under the Act, the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Trusts

Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.192286

The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc v Wilson and Wilson (Ap) Wilson and Wilson: OHCS 9 Jul 2003

Judges:

Lord Hamilton And Lord Justice Clerk And Lord Osborne

Citations:

2003 SCLR 716

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

See Also – Royal Bank of Scotland Plc v Wilson and Others SCS 5-May-2009
The bank appealed against refusal of ejectment under a charge.
Held: The appeal failed. . .
See Also – Royal Bank of Scotland Plc v Wilson and Another SC 24-Nov-2010
(Scotland) Neighbours had each granted a standard security over their respective properties to the bank. The charge agreements contained personal covenants to repay the sums borrowed on demand. The land-owners appealed against an order for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.190887

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

(Bahamas) The provisions in the Acts of 1833 and 1874 did away with the earlier doctrine of ‘non adverse’ possession, under which, in the absence of an ouster, the possession of one joint tenant or tenant in common was regarded as the possession of the others, so that time did not run against those who were not in possession.

Judges:

Lord Upjohn

Citations:

[1968] AC 1072, [1968] UKPC 1, [1968] 2 WLR 873, [1968] 1 All ER 530

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Real Property Limitation Acts of 1833 12, Real Property Limitation Acts of 1874 1

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Cited by:

Cited – Earnshaw and Others v Hartley CA 31-Mar-1999
An administrator de son tort, who was also a beneficiary, held the estate property on trust, and so could not establish adverse possession against the estate during the period of trusteeship. He held a sufficient interest in the assets already. A . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Limitation

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.190222

Leigh v Taylor: HL 6 Feb 2002

Valuable tapestries had been set up for display in a room in a stately home . They were first stretched over canvas and then tacked to the canvas. That canvas was then stretched over strips of wood and nailed to those strips of wood which in turn were nailed to the walls of the drawing room. The tapestries could be removed without doing any structural damage to the building.
Held: Despite the degree of attachment to the walls of the house, having regard to the nature of the items and the purpose of their being placed as they were, the tapestries did not become fixtures. The new rule rfelected a change ‘in our habits and mode of life.’
Lord Halsbury LC: ‘Another principle appears to be equally clear, namely, that where it is something which, although it may be attached in some form or another (I will say a word in a moment about the degree of attachment) to the walls of the house, yet, having regard to the nature of the thing itself, and the purpose of its being placed there, is not intended to form part of the realty, but is only a mode of enjoyment of the thing while the person is temporarily there, and is there for the purpose of his or her enjoyment, then it is removable and goes to the executor’.

Judges:

Lord Macnaghten, Lord Halsbury LC

Citations:

[1902] AC 157, [1902] UKHL 1

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Elitestone Ltd v Morris and Another HL 1-May-1997
The plaintiff acquired land on which 27 chalets were erected. They served notice to quit so that the site could be developed. The defendants argued that they had residential tenancies with protection under the Rent Act 1977.
Held: The tenants’ . .
Cited – Botham and others v TSB Bank Plc CA 30-Jul-1996
A flat had been repossessed by the bank. The parties disputed whether items were fixtures and charged with the land or not.
Held: The judge had correctly analysed and applied the law of fixtures and fittings. The appeal failed save to a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.190001

Cheltenham Builders Ltd , Regina (on the Application of) v South Gloucestershire District Council: Admn 10 Nov 2003

A claim was made for the review of a decision of the Council to amend the Register of Town and Village Greens (TVG).
Held: The registration of the TVG was manifestly flawed and could not stand whether under section 14 or by way of judicial review. Available procedures did not enable precisely the same relief to be granted in that judicial review would enable the registration itself to be quashed. Judicial review was still available. There was no question of bypassing the statutory scheme; s.14 did not require permission to be obtained and there were no specific time limits. The date was that of the determination of the application by the registration authority or judgment by the court. That would enable the landowner in all cases to defeat a claim to the existence of a Green by placing a notice in appropriate terms on the land in question after the application has been made or proceedings commenced and before the determination or judgment and accordingly frustrate the purpose of the legislation. In some cases fairness would make an oral hearing not merely an option but a necessity.
Sullivan J considered the concept of ‘locality’ in this context, finding: 1) The word locality in section 22(1A) should be construed as having the same meaning in classes a, b and c; 2) Apart from the doubt expressed by Lord Denning MR in the New Windsor case, the authorities were unanimously to the effect that, at common law, a customary right to indulge in lawful sports and pastimes could exist only for the benefit of some legally recognised administrative division of the county, and that that was the sense in which Parliament used the word locality when defining class b and c village greens in 1965; 3) On any other approach, there would be no practical distinction between a locality and a neighbourhood; 4) Parliament’s belief that the burden placed upon applicants for TVG registration to demonstrate that the users were the inhabitants of any locality was unduly onerous and should be lightened by the introduction of the neighbourhood concept, was entirely in accordance with the (almost) unanimous view expressed in the authorities; 5) A neighbourhood need not be a recognised administrative unit. A neighbourhood must have a sufficient degree of cohesiveness; 6) A locality in the case of class a and class b village greens means an administrative unit, not one or more administrative units, and locality has the same meaning in subsection; 7) When enacting the 2000 Act, Parliament had not intended to create additional obstacles for applicants, but it managed to do so.

Judges:

Sullivan J

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 2803 (Admin), [2004] JPL 975

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Commons Registration Act 1965 14 22(1A)

Cited by:

Cited – Oxfordshire County Council v Oxford City Council, Catherine Mary Robinson ChD 22-Jan-2004
Land had been registered in part as a common. The council appealed.
Held: The rights pre-existing the Act had not been lost. The presumption against retrospectively disapplying vested rights applied, and the application had properly been made. . .
Cited – Regina (G) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal; Regina (M) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal Admn 25-Mar-2004
The applicants sought judicial review of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal’s refusal of leave to appeal. The court had to decide whether such a right survived section 101 of the 2001 Act.
Held: The right to have a judicial review could only be . .
Disapproved in part – 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 – Paddico (267) Ltd v Kirklees Metropolitan Council and Others ChD 23-Jun-2011
The company sought the rectification of the register of village greens to remove an entry relating to its land, saying that the Council had not properly considered the need properly to identify the locality which was said to have enjoyed the rights . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Judicial Review

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.189123

UCB Group Ltd v Hedworth: CA 4 Dec 2003

The defendant challenged the claimant’s right to possession under a legal charge. She appealed a finding that she had not established the undue influence of her husband, a solicitor.
Held: A lender who received a voidable security was entitled to invoke the right of subrogation in the same way, and to the same extent, as a lender who had received security which turned out to be void. The judge’s limited record of his findings made it difficult to handle the appeal. There is a clear distinction between a charge which is voidable from its inception and one which is valid and fully enforceable, when made but which may become void at some future date unless registered. The bank had obtained what it bargained for. The Butler -v- Rice principle applied in the instant case. If the Barclays charge was voidable at the instance of the defendant, Barclays must be taken to have intended to retain and keep alive any security rights to which it was entitled in the absence of an effective security, and, by parity of reasoning. UCB was in turn entitled to be subrogated to those rights.

Judges:

Lord Justice Jonathan Parker Lord Justice Kennedy Lord Justice Longmore

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1717, Times 09-Jan-2004, Gazette 29-Jan-2004

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge (No 2); Barclays Bank plc v Harris; Midland Bank plc v Wallace, etc HL 11-Oct-2001
Wives had charged the family homes to secure their husband’s business borrowings, and now resisted possession orders, claiming undue influence.
Held: Undue influence is an equitable protection created to undo the effect of excess influence of . .
Cited – Barclays Bank Plc v O’Brien and Another HL 21-Oct-1993
The wife joined in a charge on the family home to secure her husband’s business borrowings. The husband was found to have misrepresented to her the effect of the deed, and the bank had been aware that she might be reluctant to sign the deed.
Cited – Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge (No 2); Barclays Bank plc v Harris; Midland Bank plc v Wallace, etc HL 11-Oct-2001
Wives had charged the family homes to secure their husband’s business borrowings, and now resisted possession orders, claiming undue influence.
Held: Undue influence is an equitable protection created to undo the effect of excess influence of . .
Cited – Capital Finance v Stokes 1969
A voidable charge remains valid until avoided. ‘It was argued for the vendor that what he contracted to get was a valid legal charge, and that he has not received because the company in default of its obligation under section 95 [of the Companies . .
Cited – Burston Finance Ltd v Spierway Ltd ChD 1974
The lender took a charge over a property held by a company which subsequently became void because it was not registered within the required period at Companies House.
Held: A voidable charge is a valid charge unless and until set aside: . .
Cited – Rhesa Shipping Co SA v Edmonds (The Popi M) HL 16-May-1985
The Popi M sank in calm seas and fair weather as a result of a large and sudden entry of water into her engine room through her shell plating. The vessel’s owners claimed against her hull and machinery underwriters, contending that the loss was . .
Cited – CIBC Mortgages Plc v Pitt and Another HL 21-Oct-1993
Mrs Pitt resisted an order for possession of the house saying that she had signed the mortgage only after misrepresentations by and the undue infuence of her husband who was acting as the bank’s agent.
Held: A bank was not put on enquiry as to . .
Cited – Castle Phillips Finance v Piddington CA 1995
The wife charged the matrimonial home to Lloyds to secure the husband’s indebtedness. The husband subsequently agreed with Barclays for the indebtedness to be refinanced. The husband and an accomplice forged her signature on a transfer of the . .
Cited – Scotlife Home Loans v Hedworth CA 1996
The lender claimed possession as chargee under a legal charge granted by the respondents who filed Defences contending that the claimant had agreed to replace the secured loan and to waive its remedies for default under the charge. The claimant said . .
Cited – Barbara Ann Leggatt v National Westminster Bank Plc CA 19-Oct-2000
Where a wife executed a charge over a jointly owned property to secure her joint debts, and then seventeen years later executed a replacement charge to secure borrowings of the husband and she had received independent advice, she could not assert . .
Cited – Ghana Commercial Bank v Chandiram PC 1960
The bank made an advance to the owner of property in Accra which was used to pay off his indebtedness to Barclays (DC and O) Ltd, secured by an equitable mortgage. The owner executed a legal mortgage in favour of the Ghana Bank, but this was . .
Cited – Abbey National Building Society v Cann HL 29-Mar-1990
Registered land was bought with an advance from the plaintiff. The transfer and charge were registered one month later, but in the meantime, the buyer’s parents moved in. When the buyer defaulted, his mother resisted possession proceedings, saying . .
Cited – Butler v Rice 1910
The wife owned a Bristol property and a Cardiff property subject to a andpound;450 charge in favour of a bank with whom the title deeds had been deposited. The husband asked the plaintiff to lend him andpound;450 to pay off the mortgage. The . .

Cited by:

Cited – Serious Organised Crime Agency v Szepietowski and Others ChD 15-Oct-2010
The court was asked whether, as second mortgagee on the defendant’s properties, the claimant agency had the equitable power of marshalling of prior charges. The first chargee had charges over two properties, and sold the first, satisfying it debt, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Undue Influence

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.188416

Gillon v Baxter and Another: CA 10 Oct 2003

Boundary dispute

Judges:

Ward, Scott Baker, LJJ, Sir Martin Nourse

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1591

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Scarfe v Adams CA 1981
Transfer deeds for a sale of land did not define the boundary but referred to a plan which was held to be too small to show a precise boundary. The only other element of the parcels clause was that it was land adjoining Pyle Manor and that it was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.188117

E R Ives Investments Ltd v High: CA 14 Dec 1966

One exception to the requirement that an easement must be granted by a deed is that if permission to enjoy a right, capable of constituting an easement, is given by the landowner in terms likely to lead, and that do lead, the beneficiary of the permission to believe he is entitled on a permanent basis to enjoy the right and in that belief he sufficiently alters his position to his detriment, by expenditure of money or otherwise, he may become entitled in equity to the easement by proprietary estoppel. The landowner would not be able to withdraw the permission he had given. 20 years’ enjoyment of the equitable right would enable the beneficiary of the permission to claim a legal easement under the 1832 Act. In such a case the enjoyment of the right pursuant to the original permission is enjoyment by a person ‘claiming right thereto’. The original permission would be the foundation of the claim of right but the enjoyment would not have been precario. A purchaser taking with actual notice of the equity will be bound by it. An equity arising from a proprietary estoppel could not be registrable under the Land Charges Act as an equitable easement within class D(iii).

Judges:

Lord Denning MR, Danckwerts, Winn LJJ

Citations:

[1967] 2 QB 379, [1966] EWCA Civ 1, [1967] 1 All ER 504, [1967] 2 WLR 789

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v City of Sunderland ex parte Beresford HL 13-Nov-2003
Land had been used as a park for many years. The council land owner refused to register it as a common, saying that by maintaining the park it had indicated that the use was by consent and licence, and that prescription did not apply.
Held: . .
Cited – Tinsley v Milligan CA 1992
The court considered the defence of illegal user to a claim to have established an easement by prescription: ‘These authorities seem to me to establish that when applying the ‘ex turpi causa’ maxim in a case in which a defence of illegality has been . .
Cited – Tinsley v Milligan CA 1992
The court considered the defence of illegal user to a claim to have established an easement by prescription: ‘These authorities seem to me to establish that when applying the ‘ex turpi causa’ maxim in a case in which a defence of illegality has been . .
Cited – Sweet and Another v Sommer and Another ChD 25-Jun-2004
Part of land had been sold off. By oversight no right of way had been taken in favour of the retained land. The dominant owner argued that by demolition of a building a means of access could be found and that therefore no right of way by necessity . .
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 – United Bank of Kuwait Plc v Sahib and Others CA 2-Feb-1996
The bank appealed against a decision that the simple deposit of deeds with a bank did not take effect as an equitable charge.
Held: Depositing deeds with a bank is not sufficient to create a charge over them. The old law as to the creation of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.187770

Cumbernauld and Kilsyth District Council v Dollar Land (Cumbernauld) Ltd: HL 22 Jul 1993

A walkway had existed from the town centre to residential areas. When the land was acquired the defendant new owners sought to close the walkway. The authority asserted that a public right of way had been acquired.
Held: There was no need to demonstrate any conflict of interest between the proprietor and users to establish acquisition of a public right of way by prescription. There was no such principle of law. If acquiescence could lead to a public right of way being established, ‘encouragement can even more readily be said to have the same consequences.’

Judges:

Lord Jauncey

Citations:

1993 SLT 1318, [1993] UKHL 15, [1993] EG 146 (CS), 1993 SC (HL) 44, 1993 SCLR 798

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 3(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Cumbernauld and Kilsyth District Council v Dollar Land (Cumbernauld) Ltd SCS 1992
(Inner House) When Cumbernauld town centre was built, a walkway was provided between the shopping centre and residential areas. It was used for many years, but then closed to prevent crime. The authority sought an interdict to keep it open as a . .
Applied – Dorchester Studios (Glasgow) Ltd v Stone HL 1975
The House was asked whether an irritancy clause was unreasonable. . .
See Also – CIN Properties Ltd v Dollar Land (Cumbernauld) Ltd HL 21-May-1992
. .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Cumbernauld and Kilsyth District Council v Dollar Land (Cumbernauld) Ltd SCS 1992
(Inner House) When Cumbernauld town centre was built, a walkway was provided between the shopping centre and residential areas. It was used for many years, but then closed to prevent crime. The authority sought an interdict to keep it open as a . .
Cited – Regina v City of Sunderland ex parte Beresford HL 13-Nov-2003
Land had been used as a park for many years. The council land owner refused to register it as a common, saying that by maintaining the park it had indicated that the use was by consent and licence, and that prescription did not apply.
Held: . .
Cited – Regina v City of Sunderland ex parte Beresford HL 13-Nov-2003
Land had been used as a park for many years. The council land owner refused to register it as a common, saying that by maintaining the park it had indicated that the use was by consent and licence, and that prescription did not apply.
Held: . .
See Also – Dollar Land (Cumbernauld) Ltd v CIN Properties Ltd (Scotland) HL 16-Jul-1998
(Scotland) The appellants sought compensation under the law of unjustified enrichment for losses sustained as a result of the exercise against them of a conventional irritancy.
Held: Where a landlord recovered possession of land under lease by . .
See Also – Dollar Land (Cumbernauld) Ltd v CIN Properties Ltd OHCS 21-Apr-1995
An arrangement creating a common economic interest is not enough to create partnership. . .
Cited – Lewis, Regina (on The Application of) v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council and Another SC 3-Mar-2010
The claimants sought to have land belonging to the council registered as a village green to prevent it being developed. They said that it had for more than twenty years been used by the community for various sports. The council replied that it had . .
Cited – Barkas, Regina (on The Application of ) v North Yorkshire County Council and Another SC 6-Mar-2014
The Court was asked as to the registration of a playing field as a ‘town or village green’. Local residents asserted that their use of the land, having been ‘as of right’ required the registration. They now appealed against rejection of that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Scotland

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.187768

Bristol and West Building Society v Henning: CA 2 Apr 1985

Citations:

[1985] CLY 2950, [1985] 2 All ER 606, [1985] EWCA Civ 6, [1985] 1 WLR 778

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Applied – Equity and Law Home Loans Ltd v Prestidge CA 1992
A house was bought in the name of one partner in an unmarried couple. It was subject to a mortgage, and the non-owner contributed a capital sum. The landowner later remortgaged for a larger sum, but without the partner’s consent. The landowner then . .
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, Equity

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.187402

Butts Park Ventures (Coventry) Limited v Bryant Homes Central Limited: ChD 29 Oct 2003

Judges:

The Vice-Chancellor

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 2487 Ch

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Tiffany Investments Ltd and Another v Bircham and Co Nominees (No 2) Limited and others CA 4-Dec-2003
The tenancy was a long lease at a low rent under the 1954 Act, and so had continuing protection under the 1977 Act whilst occupied by the original tenant. The lease was assigned and registered. It had been conditional upon an application to purchase . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Contract

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.187282

Partridge and others v Lawrence and others: CA 8 Jul 2003

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1122

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See also – Partridge and others v Lawrence and others CA 8-Jul-2003
The appellants challenged a finding as to the width of a right of way over their land as exercised by the respondents.
Held: The appeal was allowed in part. Peter Gibson LJ said: ‘The claimants now have the security that this court is . .

Cited by:

See Also – Partridge and others v Lawrence and others CA 8-Jul-2003
The appellants challenged a finding as to the width of a right of way over their land as exercised by the respondents.
Held: The appeal was allowed in part. Peter Gibson LJ said: ‘The claimants now have the security that this court is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.185529

Laing Homes Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs: Admn 8 Jul 2003

Sullivan J allowed Laing Homes Ltd.’s application for judicial review of the County Council’s decision to register a Town or Village Green, but rejected the argument that the locality needed to be specified in the application form, could not be later amended, and that the Ecclesiastical Parish of Hazlemere did not qualify as a locality. He endorsed the Inspector’s approach at paragraph 142 to the effect that ‘it is clear from the scheme of the [1965 Act] and the Regulations that the question of what is the relevant ‘locality’ (or if appropriate ‘neighbourhood within a locality’) in the section 22 sense is a matter of fact for the Registration Authority to determine (albeit in accordance with the correct legal principles) in the light of all the evidence, which may indeed contain a number of conflicting views on the topic. There is no requirement in the Form or Regulations for an applicant to commit himself to a legally correct (or any) definition of the ‘Section 22 locality’ (or ‘neighbourhood’)’.

Judges:

Sullivan J

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 1578 (Admin), [2003] 3 PLR 60

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Commons Registration Act 1965

Cited by:

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

Land, Local Government

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.184462

Lowery v Walker: HL 9 Nov 1910

A trespasser was injured by the land owner’s savage horse.
Held: If a land-owner knows of but does nothing to stop acts of trespass by the public on his land, there may be an implied license. Decision reversed. In Scottish courts the strictness of the duty of care incumbent on the occupier of premises varied according to the circumstances in which the injured party had entered on the premises, and on the extent of his right, or lack of it, to enter. The extent of right, and consequently the stringency of the duty of care, and the question whether care sufficient in the circumstances had been shown, were questions of fact to be determined with regard to the circumstances of the case

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), the Earl of Halsbury, Lords Atkinson and Shaw

Citations:

[1911] AC 10, [1910] UKHL 1, [1910] UKHL 726, 48 SLR 726

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Lowery v Walker CA 1910
An occupier of land who knows that members of the public are in the habit of going on to his land and does nothing to prevent it, may be deemed to have licensed them to do so. . .

Cited by:

Cited – British Railways Board v Herrington HL 16-Feb-1972
Land-owner’s Possible Duty to Trespassers
The plaintiff, a child had gone through a fence onto the railway line, and been badly injured. The Board knew of the broken fence, but argued that they owed no duty to a trespasser.
Held: Whilst a land-owner owes no general duty of care to a . .
Cited – Robert Addie and Sons (Collieries) Ltd v Dumbreck SCS 1928
A boy trespassed on land and was injured on machinery there. The local working-classes resorted to the field regularly ‘(1) as an open space; (2) as a playground; (3) as a means of access to chapel and railway station; and (4) – as regards the less . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Land, Animals

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.182878

Commissioner for Railways v Quinlan: PC 9 Mar 1964

(New South Wales) The plaintiff trespasser was hit by the occupier’s train. He succeeded at trial and on first appeal.
Held: A mere failure to exercise reasonable care was not a basis for claim by a trespasser, there must: ‘be injury due to some willful act involving something more than the absence of reasonable care. There must be some act done with deliberate intention of doing harm or at least act done with reckless disregard of the presence of the trespasser, – reckless disregard of ordinary humanity towards him’.
Viscount Radcliffe held: ‘trespasser to whom the occupier is accountable for his actions, even if dangerous’, is one of whose presence he actually knows or one whose presence at the time of injury can fairly be described as extremely likely or very probable. To go further is to accept the proposition that a trespasser who insists on forcing himself on to the occupier’s premises and lets him know that he intends to enter in this way can impose on the latter, against his will, a duty to take precautions and have care which may seriously impede the conduct of his lawful activities. In their lordships’ opinion the law does not admit of this result.

Judges:

Viscount Radcliffe

Citations:

[1964] 1 All ER 897, [1964] 2 WLR 817, [1964] AC 1054, [1964] UKPC 9

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – British Railways Board v Herrington HL 16-Feb-1972
Land-owner’s Possible Duty to Trespassers
The plaintiff, a child had gone through a fence onto the railway line, and been badly injured. The Board knew of the broken fence, but argued that they owed no duty to a trespasser.
Held: Whilst a land-owner owes no general duty of care to a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Land, Commonwealth

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.182871

Tate and Lyle Industries Ltd v Greater London Council: HL 24 Mar 1983

The plaintiff had constructed and used two jetties, and dredged a channel down to the Thames for their use. The Council constructed two terminals nearby, the result of which was to cause a build up of silt blocking the channel.
Held: The riparian owners had no right to insist upon any particular water depth. Their rights were limited to the ordinary purposes of a riparian owner, such as taking water. However, the public right of navigation of the Thames had been infringed by the construction of the terminal, creating a public nuisance for which they were liable to the plaintiff. A defence of statutory authority would require the council to show that it had taken all reasonable care in the design of the terminal. It had not done so. Their liability extended also to the second jetty, since the creation of the channel also created a public navigation right over the new channel.

Judges:

Lord Templeman

Citations:

[1983] 2 AC 509, [1983] UKHL 2

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Attorney-General v Thames Conservators 1862
. .
Distinguished – Bickett v Morris 1866
. .
Distinguished – Lyon v Fishmongers’ Co HL 1876
Access to the river Thames via the plaintiff’s wharf was obstructed and this was sufficient to give rise to a successful action in private nuisance.
A riparian owner has a private law right to gain access to its frontage by boat.
Distinguished – Booth v Ratte 1890
. .
Applied – Donoghue (or M’Alister) v Stevenson HL 26-May-1932
Decomposed Snail in Ginger Beer Bottle – Liability
The appellant drank from a bottle of ginger beer manufactured by the defendant. She suffered injury when she found a half decomposed snail in the liquid. The glass was opaque and the snail could not be seen. The drink had been bought for her by a . .
Applied – Dorset Yacht Co Ltd v Home Office HL 6-May-1970
A yacht was damaged by boys who had escaped from the supervision of prison officers in a nearby Borstal institution. The boat owners sued the Home Office alleging negligence by the prison officers.
Held: Any duty of a borstal officer to use . .
Applied – Anns and Others v Merton London Borough Council HL 12-May-1977
The plaintiff bought her apartment, but discovered later that the foundations were defective. The local authority had supervised the compliance with Building Regulations whilst it was being built, but had failed to spot the fault. The authority . .
Applied – Junior Books v Veitchi Co Ltd HL 15-Jul-1982
The defendant was a specialist sub-contractor brought in to lay a floor. In laying the composition floor the defenders used too wet a mixture and applied too thin a top coat and failed to cure the material properly. As a result cracks began to . .
At First Instance – Tate and Lyle Food Distribution Ltd v Greater London Council 1981
Forbes J considered the principles to be applied when considering the award of interest on damages between the date of the loss and the judgment: ‘Despite the way in which Lord Herschell LC in London, Chatham and Dover Railway Co v South Eastern . .

Cited by:

Cited – Jan De Nul (Uk) Limited v NV Royale Belge CA 10-Oct-2001
The contractor undertook to dredge a stretch of river. Due to its failure to investigate properly, the result was the release of substantial volumes of silt into the estuary, to the damage of other river users and frontagers. The act amounted to a . .
Cited – Hunter and Others v Canary Wharf Ltd HL 25-Apr-1997
The claimant, in a representative action complained that the works involved in the erection of the Canary Wharf tower constituted a nuisance in that the works created substantial clouds of dust and the building blocked her TV signals, so as to limit . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Nuisance

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.183025

Dano Ltd v Earl Cadogan and others: CA 19 May 2003

The defendants appealed against an order declaring that restrictive covenants on land of which they claimed the benefit were no longer of effect.
Held: The covenants were expressed to be in favour of property for so long as it formed part of the ‘Cadogan Settled Estate’. The trust had been terminated and the property resettled. The land having the benefit was clearly defined. It no longer satisfied that definition, and the benefit had been lost. Had it been thought necessary, the benefit could have been preserved on the resettlement of the estate in 1961.

Judges:

Scheimann, Carnwath LJJ, Sir Christopher Staughton

Citations:

Times 02-Jun-2003, [2003] EWCA Civ 782, Gazette 10-Jul-2003

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Cited by:

Appealed to – Dano Ltd v Earl Cadogan and others ChD 21-Feb-2003
A conveyance contained a covenant from 1929 restricting use of the land to the provision of housing for ‘the working classes.’ The land owner sought a declaration that the covenant was no longer enforceable on the grounds of vagueness.
Held: . .
Cited – Crest Nicholson Residential (South) Ltd v McAllister CA 1-Apr-2004
Land had been purchased which was subject to a restrictive covenant. The papers did not disclose the precise extent of the dominant land, the land which benefitted from the restriction.
Held: The land having the benefit of a covenant had to be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.182899

Merer v Fisher and Another: CA 13 May 2003

A right of pre-emption had misdescribed the property when it was registered. The land was transferred without regard to the right of pre-emption. It was found as a fact that no money passed for the transfer, and the claimants said the unregistered right of pre-emption was, under the Act, only void as against a purchaser for value. The defendant sought to challenge the finding as to consideration.
Held: The question on appeal is whether the evidence on which the judge did not make findings, expressly or by implication, demonstrates that the judge’s conclusion on the question as to the existence of the arrangement was plainly wrong. That was not established, and that part of the judgement stood. The claimant sought specific performance, the judge had refused it, but Sudbrook was to be distinguished and an order for specific performance granted.

Judges:

Lord Justice Potter, Lord Justice Mummery And Lady Justice Arden

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 747

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Land Charges Act 1925 4(6)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Distinguished – Pritchard v Briggs CA 1980
A conveyance of part in 1944 gave a right of pre-emption over retained land. The vendor’s successors the let the retained land to the plaintiff with an option to buy the freehold reversion. The retained land was sold to the defendants in purported . .
Cited – Todd v Adams and Chope (Trading as Trelawney Fishing Co) (The ‘Margaretha Maria’) CA 2002
Where the correctness of a finding of primary fact or of inference is in issue (on appeal), it cannot be a matter of simple discretion how an appellate court approaches the matter. Once the appellant has shown a real prospect (justifying permission . .
Cited – Assicurazioni Generali Spa v Arab Insurance Group (BSC) CA 13-Nov-2002
Rehearing/Review – Little Difference on Appeal
The appellant asked the Court to reverse a decision on the facts reached in the lower court.
Held: The appeal failed (Majority decision). The court’s approach should be the same whether the case was dealt with as a rehearing or as a review. . .
Cited – SS Hontestroom v SS Sagaporack HL 1927
The court discussed the weight to be given by an appellate court to findings of fact made by the court of first instance.
Held: Not to have seen the witnesses puts appellate judges in a permanent position of disadvantage as against the trial . .
Cited – English v Emery Reimbold and Strick Ltd; etc, (Practice Note) CA 30-Apr-2002
Judge’s Reasons Must Show How Reached
In each case appeals were made, following Flannery, complaining of a lack of reasons given by the judge for his decision.
Held: Human Rights jurisprudence required judges to put parties into a position where they could understand how the . .
Cited – In Re Duomatic Ltd ChD 1969
Payments were made by a company by way of remuneration to directors without complying with the company’s articles of association in that no resolution authorising the directors to receive remuneration had ever been passed in a general meeting of the . .
Distinguished – Sudbrook Trading Estate Ltd v Eggleton HL 1982
The grantors of an option, which contained a machinery for fixing the price, had refused to appoint a valuer and that made it impossible for the contractual machinery for the valuation of the option price to work. The House of Lords held that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Contract, Litigation Practice

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.182592

Saunders (Executrix of the Will of Rose Maude Gallie, Deceased) v Anglia Building Society: HL 9 Nov 1970

The Appellant had signed an assignment of her lease in favour of her nephew. She said she thought the effect of it would protect her right to continue to live in the house. She now appealed rejection of her plea of non est factum.
Held: The common law doctrine of non est factum has a very narrow and limited application. The transaction must be essentially different in substance or in kind from the transaction intended. The plea is available to a narrow class of persons, namely, those who are: unable to read owing to blindness or illiteracy; or permanently or temporarily unable, through no fault of their own, to have without explanation any real understanding of the purport of a particular document, whether that lack of understanding be from defective education, illness or innate incapacity.
Lord Wilberforce said: ‘leaving aside negotiable instruments to which special rules may apply, a person who signs a document, and parts with it so that it may come into other hands, has a responsibility, that of the normal man of prudence, to take care what he signs, which, if neglected, prevents him from denying his liability under the document according to its tenor. I would add that the onus of proof in this matter rests upon him.’
Lord Reid said: ”the matter generally arises when an innocent third party has relied on a signed document in ignorance of the circumstances in which it was signed, and where he will suffer loss if the maker of the document is allowed to have it declared a nullity.’
. . And ‘The plea cannot be available to anyone who was content to sign without taking the trouble to try to find out at least the general effect of the document. Many people do frequently sign documents put before them for signature by their solicitor or other trusted advisors without making any inquiry as to their purpose or effect. But the essence of the plea non est factum is that the person signing believed that the document he signed had one character or one effect whereas in fact its character or effect was quite different. He could not have had such a belief unless he had taken steps or been given information which gave him some grounds for his belief. The amount of information he must have and the sufficiency of the particularity of his belief must depend on the circumstances of each case.’

Judges:

Lord Wilberforce, Lord Reid

Citations:

[1971] AC 1004, [1970] UKHL 5, [1970] 3 All ER 961, [1970] 2 WLR 1078

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Howatson v Webb ChD 1907
The defendant, a solicitor’s clerk, pleaded non est factum to an action on a mortgage deed he had signed. He said that he had thought it to be a deed transferring property held as nominee for the solicitor.
Held: The court should make . .
Cited – Howatson v Webb CA 1908
The court accepted a plea of non est factum, approving the distinction made by the trial judge between the approval of the contents and the character of the deed executed. Cozens-Hardy MR said that he approved every word of Warrington J’s judgment. . .
Cited – Carlisle and Cumberland Banking Company v Bragg 1911
A party wishing to establish a plea of non est factum in order to avoid liability under a deed, must show that he had taken care in signing the document.
Held: There could not be negligence in the execution of a document unless a duty was owed . .
Cited – Thoroughgood’s case; Thoroughgood v Cole; Throwgood v Turnor, Moore 1584
Where a signatory is blind, and the document is read to him falsely either by the grantee or by a stranger, then the deed is not binding on him. An illiterate signatory need not execute the deed without it being read over to him, but where he . .
Cited – Muskham Finance Ltd v Howard CA 1963
Non est factum limited but effective
K instructed a dealer to sell a car which K held under an hire purchase agreement. The dealer found a who wanted hire purchase terms. K signed, at the dealer’s request, a document for the purposes of the transaction. Later, the dealer told K he had . .
Cited – Whelpdale’s Case 1604
Where a bond is delivered to somebody else to the use of the obligee, on being tendered is refused, the delivery of the deed was no longer effective, the obligee could not later agree to it, and the obligor could plead non est factum. . .
Cited – National Provincial Bank v Jackson CA 1886
Two sisters executed deeds relating to their property, but did not read them first or having them read out to them or explained. They said that they had relied on their brother, a solicitor.
Held: Cotton LJ said that they could not have been . .
Cited – Foster v MacKinnon 1869
The court considered a plea of non est factum.
Held: Byles J set out situations where the plea was available: ‘It seems plain, on principle and on authority, that, if a blind man, or a man who cannot read, or who for some reason (not implying . .
Cited – Whelpdale’s Case 1604
Where a bond is delivered to somebody else to the use of the obligee, on being tendered is refused, the delivery of the deed was no longer effective, the obligee could not later agree to it, and the obligor could plead non est factum. . .
Cited – Shulter’s Case 1611
Where a blind or illiterate person (here 115 years old) had a deed read over to him before it was signed, but he was mislead, he could plead non est factum. . .
Cited – In re Leighton’s Conveyance CA 1937
Rules of court provided that a person suing as a poor person should not be ordered to pay costs.
Held: The Order did not prevent the mortgagee adding to her security her costs in an action brought by the mortgagor suing as a poor person. Lord . .

Cited by:

Cited – Abacus Trust Company (Isle of Man) Colyb Limited v Barr, Barr, and Barr ChD 6-Feb-2003
The court considered the Rule in Hastings-Bass, and specifically (1) whether the trustee’s decision is open to challenge when the failure to take a consideration into account is not attributable to a breach of fiduciary duty on the part of the . .
Cited – Avon Finance Co Ltd v Bridger CA 1985
The son arranged finance for his parents to move near to him. He borrowed money to help finance it, secured by an expensive second loan. He deceived his parents into executing the loan. After the son defaulted, the plaintiff sought possession.
Cited – Peekay Intermark Ltd and Another v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd ComC 25-May-2005
The claimant alleged mis-selling of an emerging markets investment product. The defendant claimed that whilst there might have been a misrepresentation, by the time the contract was formed, correct information had been provided and incorporated in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Land, Undue Influence

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.181653

Collins v Howard De Walden Estates Limited: CA 16 Apr 2003

The tenant sought the right to purchase the freehold reversion. Her landlord resisted saying that the properties were excluded from enfranchisement being divided vertically.
Held: The cases are fact dependent, and earlier precedents must be treated with caution after Malekshad. The words ‘which may reasonably be called a house’ are words of limitation. The buildings in this case were not divided vertically in the manner contemplated by section 2(1)(b). Appeal dismissed

Judges:

Lord Justice Aldous Lord Justice Dyson

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 545, Gazette 09-May-2003

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Leasehold Reform Act 1987 1 2(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Malekshad v Howard de Walden Estates Limited HL 5-Dec-2002
A house and an adjoining building had been first demised under one lease, then separated vertically. Two separate residential properties now existed.
Held: The vertical division meant that the two houses could not be enfranchised as one under . .
Cited – Tandon v Trustees of Spurgeons Homes HL 1982
Tenants sought enfranchisement of their properties, but 75% of building consisted of a shop, and only 25% was living accomodation.
Held: The tenants were entitled to buy the freehold. The question whether a building is a house ‘reasonably so . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Land

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.181378

Langley and others v Coal Authority: CA 21 Feb 2003

The claimants were owners of properties damaged by landslip. The respondent authority asserted it had the right under the Act to elect to pay compensation rather than to executre works to re-instate the property, and also to limit the amount of compensation.
Held: The section allowed the Authority to elect either to pay compensation equal to the diminution of value in the property, or to execute works to re-instate the property. Having not made such an election, the Authority was obliged to carry out the works. That remaining duty was unaffected by the amount of costs which would have had to be allowed for if an election had been made.

Judges:

Peter Gibson, Mance LJJ, Hopper J

Citations:

Times 31-Mar-2003, [2003] EWCA Civ 204

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991 6(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Utilities, Damages, Land

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.181132

Druce v Druce: CA 11 Feb 2003

The parties disputed the extent of land conveyed. The conveyance described the plan as for identification purposes only but the decsription went on to say that it was ‘more particularly delineated on’.
Held: In the circumstances the plan would not be the controlling document. The judge had to do his best to make sense of the parcels clause.

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 535

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Druce v Druce CA 13-Aug-2002
. .
Cited – Neilson v Poole ChD 1969
Significance of Boundary agreements
The parties, neighbours, disputed the boundary between their gardens. In a conveyance of land where the plan is stated to be for identification purposes only, the effect of those words: ‘Seems . . to confine the use of the plan to ascertaining where . .
Cited – Wigginton and Milner Ltd v Winster Engineering Ltd CA 7-Dec-1977
Various conveyances had dealt with land. By mistake, certain land was excluded from the plans.
Held: The plan had been included ‘for identification purposes only’, but that did not mean that the plan was to be disregarded. It could not . .
Cited – Moreton Cullimore v Routledge CA 11-Feb-1977
Where a property being conveyed was said to be more particularly described or delineated on a plan, the verbal description prevailed but this was only because the court treated the combined expressions as meaning no more than ‘for the purpose of . .
Cited – Scarfe v Adams CA 1981
Transfer deeds for a sale of land did not define the boundary but referred to a plan which was held to be too small to show a precise boundary. The only other element of the parcels clause was that it was land adjoining Pyle Manor and that it was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.181122

Chater v Mortgage Agency Services Number Two Ltd: CA 3 Apr 2003

The plaintiff mortgagee had had his warrant for possession executed. He now appealed against an order re-instating the mortgagor to possession.
Held: The wife had been unaware of the charge, and had not been made party to the proceedings. Nevertheless, the judgment was properly obtained, and the judge had no power to re-instate the claimant. Appeal allowed.

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 490

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Administration of Justice Act 1970 36(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Cheltenham and Gloucester Building Society v Obi 1996
Once a warrant for possession has been executed, the statutory jurisdiction to re-instate a mortgagor is no longer exercisable. The court’s own inherent jurisdiction is exercisable only if either the judgment on which the warrant is based is set . .
Cited – Peabody Donation Fund v Hay CA 1986
After a warrant for possession has been executed, the court’s inherent jurisdiction to re-instate a tenant is available only where the original judgment is set aside or there is shown to have been some abuse of process in the obtaining of the . .
Cited – Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council v Hill CA 25-Apr-1994
A possession warrant issued under a secure tenancy of a dwelling-house may not be set aside after its execution, unless the possession order itself was set aside for example as having been obtained by fraud. If a possession order has been made, . .

Cited by:

Cited – Cheltenham and Gloucester Building Society v Obi 1996
Once a warrant for possession has been executed, the statutory jurisdiction to re-instate a mortgagor is no longer exercisable. The court’s own inherent jurisdiction is exercisable only if either the judgment on which the warrant is based is set . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Banking

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.181165

Sandhu and Another v Farooqui and Another: CA 3 Mar 2003

A claim to title by adverse possession was made by a purchaser of a flat owned by the defendants who had been let into possession pending completion of the intended sale, which completion never in fact occurred.
Held: Chadwick LJ said: ‘In this case the terms of the licence have to be implied. What terms should the court imply? In particular, should the court … imply a term that the licence will determine automatically as soon as there is no real prospect of the transaction proceeding to completion, whether or not both parties appreciate that. Or is it necessary to imply a term that the licence continue, until and unless one party does something to communicate to the other that the transaction is no longer to proceed to completion?’ . . And: ‘I accept that the term to be implied is that the licence will determine when it is no longer required; that is to say, when the parties are no longer proceeding towards completion of the transaction in relation to which the licence to occupy has been given. But such a term will be unworkable in practice unless (and so must itself require that) the intention not to proceed is communicated.
I would not hold that the intention not to proceed needs to be communicated in express terms (although that will be the usual case). In the usual case either the proposed vendor or the proposed purchaser (or their respective agents) will write to the other in terms which make it clear that the party is no longer proceeding towards an exchange of contracts, or towards completion of the transaction without an exchange of contracts. But there may be sufficient indication from what one is doing, to the knowledge of the other, that a court will hold that a reasonable person, with that knowledge, would appreciate that the transaction is not going to proceed.
What is essential, in my view, is that there should be some mutual communication from which the objective observer could deduce that each would appreciate that the transaction is no longer proceeding. That element is missing in this case.’

Judges:

Auld, Chadwick, Mummery LJJ

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 531

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Land

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.181156

Billings (AC) and Sons Ltd v Riden: HL 1957

A building contractor may assume a duty of care to a visitor, though the contractor was not viewed as the occupier, the occupier being separately liable to the injured plaintiff. However, ‘if the Plaintiff knew the danger, either because he was warned or from his own knowledge or observation, the question is whether the danger was such that in the circumstances no sensible man would have incurred it or, in other words, whether the Plaintiff’s exposing himself to the danger was a want of common or ordinary prudence on his part. If it was not, then the fact that he voluntarily or knowingly incurred the danger does not entitle the defendant to escape from liability.’
Lord Reid said: ‘There may be many cases in which warning is an adequate discharge of the duty . . but there are other cases when that is not so’ and illustrated this view by reference to case law. He continued: ‘The conclusion to be drawn from these cases appears to me to be that there is no magic in giving a warning. If the plaintiff knew the danger, either because he was warned or from his own knowledge and observation, the question is whether the danger was such that in the circumstances no sensible man would have incurred it or, in other words, whether the plaintiff’s exposing himself to the danger was a want of common or ordinary prudence on his part. If it was not, the fact that he voluntarily or knowingly incurred the danger does not entitle the defendant to escape from liability.’ The laintiff need not be a ‘paragon of circumspection’.

Judges:

Lord Somervell of Harrow, Lord Cohen, Lord Reid

Citations:

[1958] AC 240, [1957] 3 WLR 496, [1957] 3 All ER 1, [1957] UKHL 1, [1957] 1 QB 46

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – British Railways Board v Herrington HL 16-Feb-1972
Land-owner’s Possible Duty to Trespassers
The plaintiff, a child had gone through a fence onto the railway line, and been badly injured. The Board knew of the broken fence, but argued that they owed no duty to a trespasser.
Held: Whilst a land-owner owes no general duty of care to a . .
Cited – Hunter and Others v Canary Wharf Ltd HL 25-Apr-1997
The claimant, in a representative action complained that the works involved in the erection of the Canary Wharf tower constituted a nuisance in that the works created substantial clouds of dust and the building blocked her TV signals, so as to limit . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Land

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.180983

Surrey County Council v Bredero Homes Ltd: CA 7 Apr 1993

A local authority had sold surplus land to a developer and obtained a covenant that the developer would develop the land in accordance with an existing planning permission. The sole purpose of the local authority in imposing the covenant was to enable it to share in the planning gain if, as happened, planning permission was subsequently granted for the erection of a larger number of houses. The purpose was that the developer would have to apply and pay for a relaxation of the covenant if it wanted to build more houses. In breach of covenant the developer completed the development in accordance with the later planning permission, and the local authority brought a claim for damages.
Held: The erection of the larger number of houses in breach of the covenant had not caused any financial loss to the local authority. The Court refused to countenance the possibility of awarding restitutionary damages for breach of contract, giving reasons why such an award should be exceptional. Wrotham Park type damages were defensible only on the basis that they were restitutionary in nature. The judge had awarded nominal damages of pounds 2, and the Court of Appeal dismissed the local authority’s appeal.
Steyn LJ distinguished between a claimant’s ‘positive or expectation interest’ and his ‘negative’ interest which enables a claim to be made for ‘reliance’ losses.

Judges:

Dillon, Steyn, Rose LJJ

Citations:

[1993] 1 WLR 1361, [1993] 3 All ER 705, [1993] EWCA Civ 7, [1993] EWCA Civ 21, [1993] EGCS 77, [1993] 25 EG 141

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Surrey County Council and Mole District Council v Bredero Homes Ltd ChD 1992
Land was agreed to be sold for development in accordance with an existing planning permission. Instead a later permission was obtained, and more houses were built. The plaintiff had not sought to restrain or prevent the breach, but now sought . .
Considered – Wrotham Park Estate Ltd v Parkside Homes Ltd ChD 1974
55 houses had been built by the defendant, knowingly in breach of a restrictive covenant, imposed for the benefit of an estate, and in the face of objections by the claimant.
Held: The restrictive covenant not to develop other than in . .
Cited – Pennard Dock Engineering Co Ltd v Pounds 1963
. .
Cited – Bracewell v Appleby ChD 1975
The defendant wrongly used and asserted a right of way over a private road to a house which he had built.
Held: To restrain the defendant from using the road would render the new house uninhabitable. The court refused an injunction on the . .
Cited – Tito v Waddell (No 2); Tito v Attorney General ChD 1977
Equity applies its doctrines to the substance, not the form, of transactions. In respect of the rule against self dealing for trustees ‘But of course equity looks beneath the surface, and applies its doctrines to cases where, although in form a . .
Cited – Johnson v Agnew HL 1979
The seller had obtained a summary order for specific performance of a contract for the sale of land against the buyer.
Held: The breach was continuing and was still capable of being remedied by compliance with the order for specific . .

Cited by:

Disapproved – HM Attorney General v Blake (Jonathan Cape Ltd third Party intervening) HL 3-Aug-2000
Restitutionary Claim against Pofits from Breach
The author had written his book in breach of his duty of confidence. Having signed the Official Secrets Act, he accepted a contractual private law duty. After conviction as a spy, the publication of the book was in breach of the undertaking by not . .
Not the last word – 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 – Experience Hendrix LLC v PPX Enterprises Inc and Another CA 20-Mar-2003
The claimant had obtained an interim injunction against the defendant for copyright infringement, though it could show no losses. It now sought additionally damages. The defendant argued that it could not have both.
Held: The case arose form . .
Cited – Feakins and Another v Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Civ 1513) CA 9-Dec-2005
The department complained that the defendants had entered into a transaction with their farm at an undervalue so as to defeat its claim for recovery of sums due. The transaction used the grant of a tenancy by the first chargee.
Held: The . .
Cited – WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature) and Another v World Wrestling Federation Entertainment Inc CA 2-Apr-2007
The parties had disputed use of the initals WWF, with a compromise reached in 1994 allowing primary use by the Fund with restricted use by the Federation. The Federation now appealed an award of damages made after a finding of a breach of the . .
Cited – Harris v Williams-Wynne ChD 11-Feb-2005
The parties agreed in sale agreement for a plot of land that the buyer would not erect any additional building. He did so, and when he came to try to sell it the original vendor objected. The purchaser’s solicitors registered the agreement for sale. . .
Cited – Omak Maritime Ltd v Mamola Challenger Shipping Co Ltd ComC 4-Aug-2010
Lost Expenses as Damages for Contract Breach
The court was asked as to the basis in law of the principle allowing a contracting party to claim, as damages for breach, expenditure which has been wasted as a result of a breach. The charterer had been in breach of the contract but the owner had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Damages, Planning

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.180893

Wilson v Truelove: ChD 25 Mar 2003

The claimants requested a declaration that an option to repurchase land was void under the 1964 Act.
Held: The option to repurchase land was prima facie void. The right arose on the coming into existence of the agreement, or at the latest on the original purchase. The defendants sought assistance in equity under an estoppel by convention. The fact that the defendant’s right arose under statute did not prevent equity overriding that right. To establish an estoppel generally it was necessary to identify some unconscionable conduct on the part of the defendant. None was shown here. To establish an estoppel by convention, there was no requirement for unconscionable behaviour, but it was necessary to show some common mistake as to the meaning of the contract, followed by a course of conduct establishing reliance upon that conventional interpretation. That was absent here. The parties were merely mistaken.

Judges:

Simon Berry QC

Citations:

Times 21-Feb-2003, Gazette 13-Mar-2003, Gazette 10-Apr-2003, [2003] EWHC 750 (Ch), [2003] 23 EG 136, [2003] 2 EGLR 63, [2003] 10 EG 164, [2003] WTLR 609

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 1964 9(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Adams v Lindsell KBD 5-Jun-1818
No Contract by Post until Acceptance Received
The defendant sent his offer of wool for sale to the plaintiff by post. The plaintiff’s acceptance was at first misdirected. Before receiving the reply the defendant had sold the wool elsewhere, but this was only after he would have received 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 – 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 – Keen v Holland CA 1984
Oliver LJ rejected a submission that, where parties were shown to have a common view about the legal effect of a contract into which they had entered and it was established that one of them would not, to the other’s knowledge, have entered into it . .
Cited – Shah v Shah CA 10-Apr-2001
The court was asked as to the enforceability of a document under the terms of which the defendants were to make a payment of pounds 1.5 million to the claimant. The document was described as a deed and provided for each defendant to sign in the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Taylor v Couch ChD 1-Mar-2012
The case raised the question of law involving the application of the rule against perpetuities to what, on the claimant’s case, is a right of pre-emption created before the coming into force in 2010 of the Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 2009.’ . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Equity, Estoppel

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.180367

Rhondda Cynon Taff Borough Council v Watkins: CA 12 Feb 2003

Land had been purchased compulsorily, but the respondent unlawfully returned to possession in 1966, and now claimed title by adverse possession. The Council executed a vesting deed poll in 1988. The Council asserted that he could not be in adverse possession of his own land.
Held: ‘anyone who has possession of land can maintain an action for possession against anyone who does not have a superior title to be in possession. Mr Watkins had a right to possession which was superior to anyone else’s right to possess with one exception – the Council : the Council’s right to possession stemming from statute trumped his right to possession stemming from his paper title. Had the council brought an action for possession against him in April of 1966 it would have won. It follows that the Council’s right of action accrued in 1966’ The council relied upon the deed poll, saying that there was no applicable statutory provision for the transfer of the land and that therefore the deed poll was open to them. There had been no reason for the defendant to have challenged the deed poll, and the limitation period was not restarted. The deed poll had been executed at a time when the council no longer intended to use the land for the purpose of the original compulsory purchase, and the deed poll was invalid. The landowner’s appeal succeeded.

Judges:

Lord Justice Schiemann Lady Justice Arden Mr Justice Aikens

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 129

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 15, Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act 1946, Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Approved – 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 . .
Cited – Grice and another v Dudley Corporation ChD 1958
An authority serving a notice to treat no longer has a statutory power to acquire land in circumstances where the order under which the notice had been served was for the acquisition of land for specific purposes which the authority had abandoned. . .
Cited – Mercer v Liverpool, St Helen’s and South Lancashire Railway HL 1904
. .
Cited – Tiverton and North Devon Company v Loosemore 1884
After entry onto land under a compulsory purchase order, the Council had a right to possession even though it had been forced out of possession immediately after entry. . .
Cited – Mercer v Liverpool St Helens and South Lancashire Railway 1903
Stirling J: ‘Now at law a contract for the sale of land creates merely a personal obligation between the vendor and purchaser and does not bind the land; in equity such a contract binds the land and that not only as against the vendor, but also as . .
Cited – Z And Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 10-May-2001
Four children complained that, for years before they were taken into care by the local authority, its social services department was well aware that they were living in filthy conditions and suffering ‘appalling’ neglect in the home of their . .
Cited – Clark v University of Lincolnshire and Humberside CA 14-Apr-2000
A student had been failed after being falsely accused of cheating, but the academic review board, on remarking the paper marked it as zero.
Held: Where a University did not have the supervisory jurisdiction of a visitor, a breach of contract . .
Cited – Regina v Northumbrian Water Ltd Ex Parte Able UK Ltd QBD 18-Dec-1995
A notice to treat on compulsory purchase can be withdrawn even after possession has been taken. The acquiring authority acquires an equitable interest in such land when the compensation has been assessed. . .
Cited – Capital Investments Ltd v Wednesfield Urban District Council ChD 12-Feb-1964
The council set out to acquire two plots of land for development for housing. After the process had begun, it was decided that some of the land should be uised for educational purposes. A Land Charge had been served but the matter not completed. A . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.179588

Well Barn Shoot Limited and Well Barn Farming Limited v Shackleton and Another: CA 22 Jan 2003

The defendants had been tenant farmers of the plaintiff company which retained shooting rights over the land when part was sold to the defendants. The defendant object to the use of a roadway by the plaintiff. The plaintiff sought to repurchase the land arguing that the shooting rights substantially reduced the value. The defendant sought residential development of the land.
Held: The right of way was not to be interpreted too closely. No rectification was to be ordered since though the defendant knew of the plaintiff’s mistake, his position as reflected in the final form of deed was as he had said he insisted upon. The plaintiff argued that the residential development of the land would impede the sporting rights granted. As to the negative declaration ordered, the judge had correctly exercised his discretion.

Judges:

Lord Justice Potter Lord Justice Sedley Lord Justice Carnwath

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 2

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – VT Engineering Limited v Richard Barland and Co Limited ChD 1968
The court was asked whether a right of way ‘at all times and for all purposes’ over a roadway included an ancillary right to lateral and vertical ‘swing space’ in the course of loading and unloading in the exercise of the principal right.
Cited – Pettey v Parsons CA 1914
Mr Parsons (the defendant) owned a parcel of land on the junction of two roads in Bournemouth, called Charminster Road and Alma Road. In the middle of the parcel there was a footpath which ran from Charminster Road westwards to a private road which . .
Cited – Commission for the New Towns v Cooper (Great Britain) Ltd, (Formerly Coopind UK Ltd) CA 4-Mar-1995
The trial judge had dismissed a claim for rectification on the basis that the defendant hoped and suspected, but did not know, of the relevant mistake by the plaintiff.
Held: Rectification was ordered because the defendant had sought to . .
Cited – Peech v Best CA 1931
The defendant owned a 700 acre farm. He granted to the plaintiff ‘the exclusive right of shooting and sporting in over and upon it’ for a term of fourteen years. With still some four years of the term to run, he conveyed 12 acres of the farm for the . .
Cited – VT Engineering Limited v Richard Barland and Co Limited ChD 1968
The court was asked whether a right of way ‘at all times and for all purposes’ over a roadway included an ancillary right to lateral and vertical ‘swing space’ in the course of loading and unloading in the exercise of the principal right.
Cited – Camilla Cotton Oil Co v Granadex SA HL 1976
The jurisdiction to grant a negative declaration was not as confined as suggested by Pickford LJ, but his words ‘warn us that we must apply some careful scrutiny’. . .
Cited – Camilla Cotton Oil Co v Granadex SA CA 1975
. .
Cited – Guarantee Trust Co of New York v Hannay and Co 1915
A negative declaration should be granted by the court only in exceptional circumstances: ‘I think that a declaration that a person is not liable in an existing or possible action is one that will hardly ever be made, but that in practically every . .
Cited – Greenwich Healthcare National Health Service Trust v London and Quadrant Housing Trust and Others ChD 11-Jun-1998
The plaintiff had acquired land to build a hospital, which would require re-alignment of a link road, over which the defendants had rights of way. The land was also subject to a restrictive covenant in favour of the defendants. The defendants did . .
Cited – Messier-Dowty Ltd and Another v Sabena Sa and Others CA 21-Feb-2000
The defendants sought a declaration that they would not be liable in respect of their potential involvement in a pending action. The appellants asserted that such a declaration could not be granted since no proceedings were yet in issue. The court . .

Cited by:

Cited – Emmett v Sisson CA 3-Feb-2014
Appeal against judgment in boundary dispute involving a private driveway.
Held: The appeal failed. ‘The respondents are entitled to exercise the ‘relative luxury’ of the ample right to gain both vehicular and pedestrian access to their land . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.178801

Roland Brandwood and others v Bakewell Management Ltd: CA 30 Jan 2003

House owners had used vehicular access across a common to get to their houses for many years. The commons owner required them to purchase the right, and they replied that they had acquired the right by lost modern grant and/or by prescription.
Held: The use of a right of way over a common by vehicles (as opposed to use by foot) was specifically an offence under the 1925 Act. Unlawful acts could not be relied upon to found a claim to an easement based upon prescription. This court was bound by clear previous authority, with which it agreed. To apply the doctrine of lost modern grant it was necessary to identify who might have been the parties to such a transaction. None could be found in this case.

Judges:

Lord Justice Ward, Lady Justice Arden, Mr Justice Sullivan

Citations:

Times 05-Feb-2003, [2003] EWCA Civ 23, Gazette 20-Mar-2003

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 193, Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 68, Vehicular Access Across Common and Other Land (England) Regulations 2002 11, Prescription Act 1832 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Bakewell Management Ltd v Brandwood and Others ChD 21-Mar-2002
The claimant sought a declaration that he had acquired an easement over land by driving over it, over several years. The land owner denied the easement, saying that section 193 made the claimant’s activity a crime, and that, following Hanning, . .
Cited – Philipps v Halliday HL 1891
The freehold owner sought to recover possession of a pew in a parish church. He brought evidence that for more than 70 years he and his family had used it, repaired it, and kept it under lock and key.
Held: A legal origin for the use ought to . .
Cited – Tehidy Minerals Ltd v Norman CA 1971
The fact that land had been requisitioned by the Ministry of Agriculture between 1941 and 1960 and the 20-odd years’ user relied on as having created the rights had preceded 1941 was a bar to a prescriptive claim to grazing rights under the . .
Cited – Davis v Whitby CA 1974
The court discussed the need for some system of acquisition of right by user.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘the long user as of right should by our law be given a lawful origin if that can be done.’
Stamp LJ said: ‘if long enjoyment of a right . .
Cited – Regina v Oxfordshire County Council and Another, Ex Parte Sunningwell Parish Council HL 25-Jun-1999
When setting out to establish that a piece of land has become a village green with rights of common, the tests are similar to those used in the law of prescription and adverse possession. Accordingly, there is no need to establish a belief in those . .
Applied – Hanning and Others v Top Deck Travel Group Ltd CA 9-Jun-1993
The owner of a common appealed a finding that the neighbouring land owner had acquired by prescription a right of way across the common to use a track for commercial vehicles (buses) to get to the property (the bus depot).
Held: An easement . .
Cited – Neaverson v Peterborough Rural District Council ChD 1902
The 1812 Act provided for the draining, enclosing and improving of a fen which was common land. Under the Act the grass growing on various roadways was vested in the surveyor of highways, who had power to let it for the pasturage of ‘sound and . .
Cited – Cargill v Gotts CA 1981
The Act prohibited abstraction of water from a river without a licence from the Water Authority. The defendant had no such licence, but asserted that having extracted water over many years from the mill pond, he had acquired the right to do so: ‘The . .
Cited – Young v The Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd CA 28-Jul-1944
Court of Appeal must follow Own Decisions
The claimant was injured and received compensation. He then sought to recover again, alleging breach of statutory duty by his employers.
Held: The Court of Appeal was in general bound to follow its own previous decisions. The court considered . .
Cited – Morelle Ltd v Wakeling CA 1955
The plaintiff asserted ownership of leasehold land. A similar situation had arisen in an earlier case befoe the Court of appeal, and the court was asked to decide that that case had been decided per incuriam.
Held: The per incuriam principle . .
Cited – Rickards v Rickards CA 1990
The Court of Appeal considered the circumstances in which it could depart from its own earlier decisions under the residual principle. The court refused to follow a previous decision of the same court because, although the relevant House of Lords . .

Cited by:

Reversed on Appeal – Bakewell Management Limited v Brandwood and others HL 1-Apr-2004
Houses were built next to a common. Over many years the owners had driven over the common. The landowners appealed a decision that they could not acquire a right of way by prescription over the common because such use had been unlawful as a criminal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Limitation

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.178785

Rowland v The Environment Agency: ChD 19 Dec 2002

Public rights of Navigation have since time immemorial at common law existed over the Thames including (unless and until extinguished or ceasing to be exercisable) Hedsor Water. The claimant sought a declaration that rights of navigation over that part of the Thames had been extinguished.
Held: The various statutory provisions had not granted to the respondent any power to remove rights of navigation. The 1885 Act did not apply and gave the claimant no assistance. The agreement restricting access had not been in place for twenty years, and had only been of a temporary nature. No legitimate expectation that public rights had been extinguished could be established, because the respondent had no statutory power to extinguish rights.

Judges:

The Hon Mr Justice Lightman

Citations:

Times 28-Dec-2002, [2002] EWHC 2785 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Thames Preservation Act 1885 2 5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Cory v Bristow HL 1877
The owner of a vessel used for commercial purposes while fixed in position on a long-term basis over moorings on the riverbed could for rating purposes be treated as the occupier of those moorings and the part of the riverbed in which they were . .
Cited – Rex v Lord Grosvenor 1819
An obstruction interfering with navigation on the Thames with a public right of navigation was unlawful even if erected with the Conservators’ consent unless the Conservators were granted statutory power to give such consent. . .
Cited – Vooght v Winch 1819
Public rights of Navigation could not be extinguished by physical obstruction. . .
Cited – Rex v Montague 1825
The Commissioners of Sewers might have the power to extinguish public rights of navigation if they found that it would be for the benefit of the whole level. . .
Cited – Rex v Russell 1827
‘The right of the public on navigable rivers is not confined to the passage: trade and commerce are the chief objects and the right of passage is chiefly subservient to those ends.’ . .
Cited – Regina v The Commissioners of the Thames and Isis 1837
In 1833 Lord Boston complained to the Commissioners about the construction of the Cut above Hedsor Water on the Thames. The Commissioners did not act on the complaint. Accordingly Lord Boston claimed compensation from the Commissioners for the loss . .
Cited – Rex v Betts 1850
A navigation authority’s powers to build obstructions to navigation were confined to situations where they were aids to navigation. . .
Cited – Orr Ewing v Colqhoun 1887
In the case of tidal rivers the public right of way extends over the whole watercourse but in the case of non-tidal rivers the public rights (at least ordinarily) are confined to the channel of the river. . .
Cited – Conservators of the River Thames v Smeed Dean and Co CA 1897
The erection of a lock or pound lock otherwise than for the maintenance or improvement of navigation would be ultra vires by a Navigation Authority and in all likelihood a nuisance. Chitty LJ said: ‘The Conservators are a statutory body brought into . .
Cited – Bourke v Davis 1899
A public right of navigation over a river is ‘similar to a right of highway on land not covered by water.’ Before 1885, public rights of navigation did not exist over tributaries of the Thames where there was no prescriptive user. . .
Cited – Simpson v Attorney General HL 1904
Lord Lindley said: ‘the doctrine once a highway always a highway is, I believe, applicable to rivers as to roads’ . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Rowland v The Environment Agency CA 19-Dec-2003
The claimant owned a house by the river Thames at Hedsor Water. Public rights of navigation existed over the Thames from time immemorial, and its management lay with the respondent. Landowners at Hedsor had sought to assert that that stretch was now . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Land

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.178555

Regina v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions ex parte O’Byrne: HL 14 Nov 2002

The applicant sought to exercise her right to buy a property she had occupied of her local authority. It was in the green belt, and the authority declined to sell it until they had obtained authorisation for the sale. The authority appealed an order requiring the sale.
Held: The 1985 Act made no reference to the 1938 Act, because it was not imagined that they would conflict. The 1938 Act restricted voluntary sales by Authorities. The 1985 imposed obligations to sell. The obligations created did not conflict. The obligation to sell stood.

Judges:

Bingham of Cornhill, Hope of Craighead, Hutton, Scott of Foscote, Rodger of Earlsferry, LL

Citations:

Times 18-Nov-2002, Gazette 28-Nov-2002, [2002] UKHL 45, [2003] 1 All ER 15, [2003] HLR 30, [2002] 48 EGCS 138, [2002] 1 WLR 3250, [2002] NPC 142, [2003] BLGR 1

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act 1938 5, Housing Act 1985 118

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – O’Byrne v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions and Another CA 17-Apr-2001
A tenant sought to buy a flat under the right to buy scheme but the flat was in the green belt. The land was held under provisions in the 1938 Act making the sale of any part conditional on the consent of the respondent. The local authority . .
See Also – Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, ex parte O’Byrne Admn 20-Aug-1999
It could be proper, when ordering for a third party to be joined in an action for judicial review, to order that the original party should not be responsible for the new party’s costs in any event. Such a power could be derived from the overriding . .
At first instance – Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Ex Parte O’Byrne QBD 8-Jun-2000
A tenant sought to buy a flat under the right to buy scheme but the flat was in the green belt. The local authority objected, and an inquiry was held. The inspector held that the green belt policy itself would not be affected, but a sale would . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Local Government, Housing

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.178195

City of London Building Society v Flegg And Another: HL 14 May 1987

A couple bought a property and registered it in their own names with substantial financial assistance from the parents of one of them. The parents occupied the house with them. Without telling the parents, the owners borrowed again, executing further charges.
Held: The fact of occupation did not add to the parents’ rights as equitable chargees, or as tenants in common. A balance was to be found between making property available to be traded, and protecting the rights of equitable owners. The parents’ rights were overreached by the charges.
The provisions of the Land Registration Acts were designed to operate in parallel and consistently with the property legislation governing unregistered land.
Lord Oliver of Aylmerton: ‘ . . the philosophy behind both the Land Registration Act 1925 and the Law of Property Act 1925 was that they should operate in parallel, and it would, therefore, be surprising if it were found that the two systems were not constructed so as to dovetail into one another.’ and
‘If then, one asks what were the subsisting rights of the respondents [the occupying beneficiaries] referable to their occupation, the answer must, in my judgment, be that they were rights which, vis-a-vis the appellants [the mortgagee], were, eo instante with the creation of the charge overreached and therefore subsisted in relation to the equity of redemption.’

Judges:

Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Templeman, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton and Lord Goff of Chieveley

Citations:

[1988] AC 54, [1987] 3 All ER 435, [1987] 2 WLR 1266, [1987] UKHL 6

Links:

lip, Bailii

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 14, Land Registration Act 1925 70(1)(g)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Distinguished – Williams and Glyn’s Bank Ltd v Boland HL 19-Jun-1980
Wife in Occupation had Overriding Interest
The wife had made a substantial financial contribution to the purchase price of the house which was registered only in her husband’s name, and charged to the bank. The bank sought possession. The wife resisted saying that she had an overriding . .
Appeal from – City of London Building Society v Flegg And Another CA 1986
Where money was raised on mortgage of registered land to discharge an existing incumbrance (and so in exercise of the power conferred by s.28(1) Law of Property Act 1925 by reference to s.71(1)(i) Settled Land Act 1925) and paid to two trustees for . .

Cited by:

Cited – Paragon Finance Plc v Pender and Another CA 27-Jun-2005
The defendants had purchased their property from the local authority with the support of a loan from the claimants. The defendants fell into arrears but now sought to resist possession on the basis that the claimant, in securitising their portfolio . .
Cited – Abbey National Building Society v Cann HL 29-Mar-1990
Registered land was bought with an advance from the plaintiff. The transfer and charge were registered one month later, but in the meantime, the buyer’s parents moved in. When the buyer defaulted, his mother resisted possession proceedings, saying . .
Cited – HSBC Bank Plc v Dyche and Another ChD 18-Nov-2009
The parties disputed the claimed beneficial interest of the second defendant. The second defendant (C) said that it had been purchased for him by the first defendant (D) from C’s trustee in bankruptcy, and was thereafter held in trust for him on the . .
Cited – Cook v The Mortgage Business Plc CA 24-Jan-2012
The land owners sought relief from possession orders made under mortgages given in equity release schemes: ‘If the purchaser raises all or part of the purchase price on mortgage, and then defaults, the issue arises whether the mortgagee’s right to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Registered Land

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.178245

Earl of Balfour v Keeper of the Registers of Scotland and Others: HL 6 Nov 2002

The applicant sought a declaration that he was the owner of land by virtue of the 1848 Act, claiming that a series of grants of liferent were ineffective to restrict the title transferred.
Held: Miller’s Trustees was to be applied in to the first codicil. The only alteration which it made to the provisions of the trust disposition and settlement was spent as soon as the Third Earl succeeded to the residue in place of the Second Earl, whose nomination as the person first entitled to succeed had been cancelled by it. The provisions of Purpose in the Seventh Place which conferred a right of liferent in succession to the heirs male of the body of the Second Earl as a class were not altered or innovated upon in any other way, but were referred to only to confirm them. The date of the deed by virtue of which the appellant became entitled to his interest in possession of the residue was the date of the trust disposition and not that of the first codicil.

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Hoffmann Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Clyde Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

Citations:

[2002] UKHL 42, 2002 SLT 1385, 2002 GWD 36-1216, 2003 SC (HL) 1, 2003 SCLR 125

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Entail Amendment (Scotland) Act 1848 47 48

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Appeal from – The Rt Hon Gerald Arthur James, Earl of Balfour, Viscount Traprain of Whittingehame for Declarator of Fee Simple Proprietorship SCS 11-Apr-2002
. .
Cited – Muir’s Trustees v Williams HL 1943
The law against perpetuities in Scotland is entirely of statutory origin. . .
Cited – Erskine v Wright 1846
The provisions of the Act would be capable of being defeated if it had remained possible to tie up lands in perpetuity by the creation of a series of liferents. This would soon supersede all other methods of doing so if it were competent. . .
Cited – Middleton, Petitioner 1929
Section 47 applied to any trust deed dated after 1 August 1848. . .
Cited – Davie v Davies’ Trustees OHCS 1900
A trust disposition which had confined the pursuer to a liferent for as long as the trustees exercised the discretion which they had been given to retain the capital was struck at by section 48 of the Act. . .
Cited – Murray v Murray’s Tutor 1915
The date of a mortis causa trust disposition and settlement for the purposes of section 48 of the 1848 Act was the date of the truster’s death and not the date of its execution. . .
Cited – G W H Riddell, Petitioner IHCS 1874
The date of the deed must be taken to be the date when the trust deed was made and executed, which is the literal meaning of the words used . .
Cited – Earl of Moray, (Petitioner) HL 1950
The testamentary writings consisted of a trust disposition and five codicils. The petitioner was born after the date of the first codicil, but before the date of the fifth and final codicil. The argument was directed to the question whether the . .
Cited – Lord Binning, Petitioner 1984
. .
Cited – Malcolm’s Trustees v Malcolm HL 1950
It may be necessary to choose between various documents in order to discover the deed by virtue of which a liferent which is in question was constituted. . .
Cited – Black v Watson 1841
Where a testator leaves more than one testamentary writing they are to be read together so far as possible as if they formed one deed. . .
Applied – Miller’s Trustees v Miller 1958
The issue was whether the rule of conditio si institutus sine liberis decesserit operated and, if so, whether two nephews who predeceased the date of a codicil which the testator made to his trust disposition and settlement were to be regarded as . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – The Rt Hon Gerald Arthur James, Earl of Balfour, Viscount Traprain of Whittingehame for Declarator of Fee Simple Proprietorship SCS 11-Apr-2002
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.177934

North East Lincolnshire Borough Council v Millenium Park (Grimsby) Ltd: CA 23 Oct 2002

An agreement was made for a redevelopment of land. The council sought an order requiring specific performance by the respondent of its obligations. The council sought summary judgment, which the respondent resisted claiming that it was presently impossible to proceed.
Held: The judge had been wrong, on an application for summary judgement, to proceed on a mini-trial to see whether a proper issue as to impossibility arose. There was doubt on another issue as to the need for a roundabout, and it was wrong to order the company to build it. The proper test was to ask whether the defendant had an arguable case, the judge should not decide it as at a final action.

Judges:

Thorpe, Rix, Arden LLJ

Citations:

Times 31-Oct-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 1719

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – M V Yorke Motors v Edwards HL 1982
A sale of a second hand Rolls Royce had gone wrong. The plaintiff was claiming damages of 23,250 pounds. The plaintiff sought Order 14 summary judgment. That was refused, and the Master gave leave to defend without any conditions. The plaintiff . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.177835

Allen and Another v Greenwood and Another: CA 16 Oct 1978

cw Easement – Prescription – Right to light – Greenhouse – Claim for sufficient light to cultivate plants – Whether specially high amount of light – Whether right to extraordinary amount of light capable of being acquired by prescription – Whether right is to light for illumination only or capable of including sun’s warmth
The claimants greenhouse had been in the same position for over 20 years. They complained about work on the defendant neighbour’s land which interfered with the rights of light they had acquired.
Held: The Act set the standard for the easement acquired by prescription as the extent required for the use which had been made. The greenhouse required extra light, and that was the extent of the easement acquired.

Judges:

Buckley, Orr and Goff L.JJ

Links:

lip

Statutes:

Prescription Act 1832 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Colls v Home and Colonial Stores Ltd HL 2-May-1904
The courts below had concluded that the defendant had infringed the plaintiff’s right to light, and had awarded an injunction.
Held: the appeal succeeded. The House set out the requirements for establishing the existence of a right to light. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Limitation

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.177400

Scratton v Brown: 1825

When construing a conveyance of (or indeed a deed of grant over) the foreshore, it is a matter of interpretation whether what is conveyed (or granted) is the foreshore (or a right over the foreshore) at the time of the document or the foreshore as it exists from time to time.

Citations:

[1825] EngR 224, (1825) 4 B and C 485, (1825) 107 ER 1140

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Lynn Shellfish Ltd and Others v Loose and Another SC 13-Apr-2016
The court was asked as to the extent of an exclusive prescriptive right (ie an exclusive right obtained through a long period of use) to take cockles and mussels from a stretch of the foreshore on the east side of the Wash, on the west coast of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.326315

Mellor v Spateman (2): 1845

A corporation may prescribe for common in gross for cattle levant and couchant within the town, but not for common in gross without number

Citations:

[1845] EngR 155, (1845) 1 Wms Saund 343, (1845) 85 ER 495

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Mellor v Spateman (1) 1845
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Agriculture

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.303297

Harrison v Forth: 1695

Where a purchaser of land for value and without notice of a defect takes free of that defect, a subsequent purchaser is similarly not bound, even though he may have notice.

Citations:

[1695] Prec Ch 51

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.222680

Lavin v Johnson: CA 31 Jul 2002

A landowner sought repossession of land from his agricultural tenant for failure to pay his rent. The tenant alleged that a charge was an extortionate credit bargain. The landlord appealed.
Held: The Court must have regard to the evidence and cannot adopt an explanation unsupported by evidence. Nor in the absence of evidence supporting it, can the mortgage explanation in this case be accepted on the ground that it is the least unlikely or illogical of the competing explanations. In the absence of evidence of an explanation giving the document a different effect, the document takes effect at its face value.

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 1138

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Consumer Credit Act 1974 174

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – 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, Consumer, Agriculture

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.175236

Bristol and West plc v Bartlett and Another; Paragon Finance plc v Banks; Halifax plc v Grant: CA 31 Jul 2002

The defendants resisted claims by lenders for the payment of mortgage debts. In each case the lender had exercised the power of sale before issuing proceedings for possession. The defendants queried the limitation period applicable.
Held: The exercise of the power of sale did not mean that the original mortgage debt changed. The recovery of the original debt was governed by section 12 and section 20 together and was therefore twelve years. The recovery of the interest was governed by 20(5) and the period for claiming arrears of interest was six years.
Longmore LJ said: ‘Since the subsection refers to ‘the date on which the right to receive the money accrued’ it is much more natural to read the subsection as applying to mortgages existing on the date on which such right accrued.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Schiemann, Lord Justice Buxton and Lord Justice Longmore

Citations:

Times 09-Sep-2002, Gazette 03-Oct-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 1181, [2003] 1 WLR 284

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 12 20

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – In re McHenry CA 1894
The court considered the effect of the Limitation Acts on the rights of a secured creditor where there was an express shortfall provision in a mortgage deed. There was an express promise by a mortgagor to pay the difference on realisation of the . .
Cited – Hopkinson and Others and Birmingham Mid-Shires Building Society v Tupper CA 30-Jan-1997
The plaintiffs appealed from an order striking out their claim for want of prosecution. The defendant’s property had been sold by the mortgagees, and the plaintiffs as assignees of their debt sought to recover the balance outstanding from the . .
Cited – Rudge v Richens 1873
The mortgagee of land had entered into possession, and sold the property. He sought a declaration that he remained entitled to the balance due on the loan over and above the proceeds of sale. The defendant replied that he was not liable since the . .
Cited – Grant (Gordon) and Co v Boos HL 1926
The mortgagee had entered into possession, and then, with the consent of the court, itself bid at the auction and succeeded in purchasing it. It later resold the property for a price above the auction price. The borrower resisted an action for the . .
Cited – Sutton v Sutton 1882
A mortgage deed contained an express covenant to repay on demand the amount advanced. The principal sum and interest were secured by a mortgage of real property. A demand for payment was made, but not satisfied. An action was brought on the covenant . .
Cited – Barclays Bank v Beck CA 1952
The court drew a distinction between an action on a debt which had been but was no longer secured, and a debt which had not been secured. . .

Cited by:

Applied – Scottish Equitable Plc v Thompson and Another CA 6-Feb-2003
The mortgage deed, which was a second mortgage, did not contain any express covenant to repay the principal sum, but only for monthly interest instalments with no element of capital repayment, since the principal was to be paid from an insurance . .
Approved – West Bromwich Building Society v Wilkinson HL 30-Jun-2005
The Society had taken possession of a property in 1989. It located the defendants many years later and sought payment of the excess after deduction of the proceeds of sale, and for interest. The borrowers claimed the debt was expired by limitation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Land

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.175058

Gwilliam v West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust and Others: CA 24 Jul 2002

The claimant sought damages. She had been injured after the negligent erection of a stand which was known to be potentially hazardous. The contractor was uninsured, and the claimant sought damages from the Hospital which had arranged the fair in its grounds to raise funds.
Held: The hospital was liable under the Act. A splat wall, where people bounced off a trampoline to be stuck to a wall by Velcro. The hospital should have known this was dangerous. They could avoid liability by employing a reputable and competent contractor. They had requested sight of his insurance but did not know it had expired before the day. The hospital had a duty to the claimant, but had not fulfilled it. The actual claim was the difference between what had been recovered and what would have been recoverable if the contractor had been insured. The claim was therefore one of economic loss.
Lord Woolf categorised the claim not as one for economic loss but as a claim for damages for personal injury. The hospital owed the claimant a duty of care under s 2 of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 to take reasonable care for her safety in using the premises to which she had been invited. That included a duty to take reasonable care to satisfy itself as to the competence of the supplier of the splat-wall. In order to discharge that duty the hospital ought to have asked him about his insurance position as evidence which was relevant to whether or not he was likely to be competent. Having asked the question, it was reasonable for the hospital to accept the supplier’s answer.
Waller LJ considered that on the particular facts of the case the occupier’s duty of care to its visitors required it to take reasonable steps to satisfy itself as to the supplier’s financial viability to meet any claim against it, whether by insurance or otherwise. He agreed with Lord Woolf that the hospital was under no duty to verify the supplier’s statement about his insurance position by requiring to see a copy of the policy.
Sedley LJ said that there was a difference in principle between harm to a person or property and insurance against inability to recover damages for such harm. The occupier owed a duty to take reasonable care to use only competent contractors, but he did not consider that the occupier owed any duty of care to its visitors to take steps to ensure that its independent contractors would be insured or otherwise able to meet any claim for damages for negligence. He expressed concern about the ramifications if the court were to impose such a duty on a public institution which invited people into its grounds. He asked rhetorically: ‘What is there, in a legal system which offers equality before the law by seeking to treat like cases alike, to contain this case in a category peculiar to its own facts? If the ambit of a public institution’s duty to its visitors embraces an obligation to check on contractors’ insurance, why will a private person whose garden is used for a local fete not equally be liable to pay a sum representing full personal injury damages to a visitor injured, perhaps badly, by the negligent supervision of a coconut shy or a greasy pole by an uninsured stall holder? Or why will a householder who fails to check that his or her builder is insured not have to pay heavy damages to a neighbour who has been unable to make a worthwhile claim against the builder when a nail through a water pipe brings the neighbour’s ceiling down or a carelessly handled blow torch burns their house down?’

Judges:

Lord Woolf, Lord Chief Justice, Lord Justice Waller and Lord Justice Sedley

Citations:

Times 07-Aug-2002, Gazette 03-Oct-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 1041, [2002] 3 WLR 1425, [2003] QB 443

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 2(4)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman and others HL 8-Feb-1990
Limitation of Loss from Negligent Mis-statement
The plaintiffs sought damages from accountants for negligence. They had acquired shares in a target company and, relying upon the published and audited accounts which overstated the company’s earnings, they purchased further shares.
Held: The . .

Cited by:

Cited – Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club CA 7-Nov-2003
The claimant was very badly injured at a bonfire organised by the defendants. He had been asked to help with a part of the display, organised by sub-contractors, which exploded as he was filling it.
Held: The nature of the activity to be . .
Cited – Naylor (T/A Mainstreet) v Payling CA 7-May-2004
The claimant was injured by a door attendant employed as an independent contractor by the defendant.
Held: The defendant’s duty in selecting an independent contractor was limited to assessing the competence of the contractor. The duties of . .
Cited – Glaister and Others v Appelby-In-Westmorland Town Council CA 9-Dec-2009
The claimant was injured when at a horse fair. A loose horse kicked him causing injury. They claimed in negligence against the council for licensing the fair without ensuring that public liability insurance. The Council now appealed agaiinst a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Land, Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174703

Brazil v Brazil: CA 31 Jul 2002

The defendant appealed against an order for rectification of the registered title to land he occupied, and for which he had had a possessory title. The order had been made in his absence.
Held: A ‘good reason’ for non attendance at a hearing was not just an honest and genuine one, but the court must not be over-analytical. The court is to ascertain from the evidence what the true reason for non attendance at trial was and, looking at the matter in the round, to ask whether that reason is sufficient to entitle the applicant to invoke the discretion of the court to set aside the order. Here, the address for service was incorrect, the defendant was illiterate, and he had not received the notice. The fact of his illiteracy was relevant. There was good reason for non-attendance. Here, the defendant had lodged a statutory declaration in support of his application for possessory title, and it was unclear that the proceedings should have gone ahead on the basis that there would be no factual dispute. Appeal against the setting aside of the order dismissed.
Mummery LJ said: ‘There has been some debate before us, as there was before the judge, about what is or is not capable of being a ‘good reason.’ In my opinion the search for a definition or description of ‘good reason’ or for a set of criteria differentiating between good and bad reasons is unnecessary. I agree with Hart J that, although the court must be satisfied that the reason is an honest or genuine one, that by itself is not sufficient to make a reason for non-attendance a ‘good reason.’ The court has to examine all the evidence relevant to the defendant’s non-attendance; ascertain from the evidence what, as a matter of fact, was the true ‘reason’ for non attendance; and, looking at the matter in the round, ask whether that reason is sufficient to entitle the applicant to invoke the discretion of the court to set aside the order. An over analytical approach to the issue is not appropriate, bearing in mind the duty of the court, when interpreting the rules and exercising any power given to it by the rules, to give effect to the overriding objective of enabling it to deal with cases justly. The perfectly ordinary English phrase ‘good reason’ as used in CPR 39.3(5) is a sufficiently clear expression of the standard of acceptability to be applied to enable a court to determine whether or not there is a good reason for non-attendance.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Mummery, Lady Justice Hale, and Lord Justice Carnwath

Citations:

Times 18-Oct-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 1135, [2003] CP Rep 7

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 39.3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regency Rolls Ltd and Another v Carnall CA 16-Oct-2000
The court considered what was meant by ‘act promptly’ in the Rule.
Held: Dictionary definitions were considered by both Arden LJ and Simon Brown LJ – ‘with alacrity’ or ‘all reasonable celerity in the circumstances’. The court no longer has a . .

Cited by:

Cited – Estate Acquisition and Development Ltd v Wiltshire and Another CA 4-May-2006
The defendants appealed a decision that they had no sufficient reason for not attending court on the day of the trial.
Held: The fact that the defendants had a continuing commercial relationship with the claimants was not enough to justify an . .
Cited – Zambia v Meer Care and Desai (A Firm) and others CA 9-Jul-2008
The claimant sought to allege fraud by its former president, and began proceedings to recover payments it said were fraudulent, including against a defendant Taylor in Switzerland, who now said that no letter before action or other explanation . .
Cited – WXY v Gewanter and Another QBD 30-May-2012
The claimant had obtained an injunction to restrain publication of what was private information. The third defendant now applied to set aside the judgment, saying that their application for an adjournment had been wrongly refused. He said that he . .
Cited – Kenny and Others v Abubaker and Others CA 23-Oct-2012
The defendant landlord sought to appeal against an order that he pay to the respondent tenants a penalty under the 2004 Act of three times the tenancy deposit. The court was now asked whether there was has any right to have set aside a judgment . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Registered Land, Limitation, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174447

Smith and Another v South Gloucestershire Council: CA 31 Jul 2002

The claimants purchased land. The local search did not reveal a planning permission which affected the value of the property by applying an occupancy condition. He claimed compensation. Compensation was eventually agreed to be payable, but the parties did not agree as to the time at which the damage was to be assessed. At the date when the defect was discovered, or at the date of the compensation hearing.
Held: The compensation claim was equivalent to a claim in tort. The assessment of the damage would usually be as at the date it was suffered. Because they had not known of the restriction, the claimants had however invested money in the property which would now be lost. They alleged the result was similar to the situation of losses arising from a negligent survey. The ‘date of breach rule’ has exceptions. The position in tort and in contract should be the same. Here, the normal order would prove unjust to the claimants. The claimant had acted reasonably in delaying, in order to try to get the restriction lifted, and his damages would be calculated as at the later date, the date of the hearing.

Judges:

Lord Justice Ward, Lord Justice Mance and Sir Martin Nourse

Citations:

Times 30-Aug-2002, Gazette 17-Oct-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 1131

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Local Land Charges Act 1975 10

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Philips v Ward CA 1956
The Plaintiff had relied on a negligent survey to purchase a substantial Elizabethan property and land. The report did not mention that the timbers of the house were badly affected by death watch beetle and worm so that the only course left to him . .
Cited – Perry v Sidney Phillips and Son CA 1982
In 1982 the surveyor failed to observe serious defects, including a leaking roof and a septic tank with an offensive smell. The plaintiff purchaser could not afford major repairs and executed only minor repairs himself. At the date of the trial the . .
Cited – Watts and Co v Morrow CA 30-Jul-1991
The plaintiff had bought a house on the faith of the defendant’s report that there were only limited defects requiring repair. In fact the defects were much more extensive. The defendant surveyor appealed against an award of damages after his . .
Applied – Alcoa Minerals of Jamaica Inc v Herbert Broderick PC 20-Mar-2000
(Jamaica) Damage had been caused to the claimant’s property, but, because of his lack of funds, he was dependent upon the receipt of the damages to carry out the works of repair necessary. By the time the matter came to trial, inflation meant that . .
Cited – Trans Trust SPRL v Danubian Trading Co Ltd CA 1952
Lord Justice Denning said: ‘It was also said that the damages were the result of the impecuniosity of the sellers and that it was a rule of law that such damages are too remote. I do not think there is any such rule. In the case of a breach of . .
Cited – Liesbosch Dredger (Owners of) v Owners of SS Edison, The Liesbosch HL 28-Feb-1933
The ship Edison fouled the moorings of the Liesbosch resulting in the total loss of the dredger when it sank. It had been engaged on work in the harbour under contract with the harbour board. All the owners’ liquid resources were engaged in the . .
Cited – Miliangos v George Frank (Textiles) Ltd HL 1975
The issue was whether an English court was able to award damages in Sterling only.
Held: The House distinguished clearly between the substance of the debtor’s obligations and the effect of English procedural law when a debt in a foreign . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Damages, Local Government

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174449

Mulvaney v Jackson, Gough, Holmes and Holmes: CA 24 Jul 2002

Several cottages and adjacent open land had been in common ownership. The cottages were sold off individually with rights of way over the plot, but the land had been used as garden by the cottagers. The land owner removed a flower bed.
Held: The use of the land over the years as a communal garden had created an easement and the defendants had gone along with the use. The judge had made the wrong order in allowing for the restoration of a particular flower bed, he should rather have declared the right to use the flower bed for communal purposes in accordance with the right established.
An activity which would be justified by an express grant does not necessarily support the existence of the same right claimed by prescription since the evidence, overall, may establish a different right or no right at all.

Judges:

Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Mance and Lord Justice Latham

Citations:

Times 27-Aug-2002, Gazette 03-Oct-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 1078, [2003] P and CR 16, [2002] 44 EG 175, [2003] 4 All ER 83, [2003] 1 WLR 360

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – In re Ellenborough Park CA 15-Nov-1955
Qualifying Characteristics ofr Easement
Parties claimed a public right to wander through the grounds of the park.
Held: No such right could have been granted or was properly claimed. Lord Evershed MR said: ‘There is no doubt, in our judgment, but that Attorney-General v. Antrobus . .
Cited – Grigsby v Melville and Another ChD 1972
A purchaser of a house above a cellar sought an injunction to support his assertion that a cellar which was served by an access only from the defendant seller’s retained property had been included in the conveyance of ‘all that dwellinghouse’
Cited – Scarfe v Adams CA 1981
Transfer deeds for a sale of land did not define the boundary but referred to a plan which was held to be too small to show a precise boundary. The only other element of the parcels clause was that it was land adjoining Pyle Manor and that it was . .

Cited by:

Cited – Polo Woods Foundation v Shelton-Agar and Another ChD 17-Jun-2009
The court considered whether the claimant had established a profit a prendre against the defendant neighbour’s land in the form of a right of pasturage, acquired either by lost modern grant or by prescription.
Held: The appeal succeeded, but . .
Cited – Regency Villas Title Ltd and Others v Diamond Resorts (Europe) Ltd and Another ChD 7-Dec-2015
Claim by time share owners for easements over neighbouring land. The easements were for various sporting rights and facilities.
Held: The Claimants were entitled to appropriate declaratory relief confirming that they have the rights they claim . .
Cited – Regency Villas Title Ltd and Others v Diamond Resorts (Europe) Ltd and Another CA 4-Apr-2017
Can a recreational purpose underlie an easement
The court considered the validity of easements of recreational facilities. A property had been developed with timeshare leases within a substantial and attractive grounds area. Later a second development was created but with freehold interests, but . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174361

Hallam Land Management Ltd v UK Coal Mining Ltd and another: CA 30 May 2002

An option was granted for the sale of land subject to planning consent being granted. Eventually it was sought to exercise the option in respect of part only of the land.
Held: Though words in the contract made reference to all or part of the land, the references to the planning application were to the whole site, and in this context the option became exercisable only on the grant of permission for a substantial part of the site. This was not a substantial part. Landscaping works on other parts of the site would not count as development against this background and business context.

Judges:

Lords Justice Thorpe, Rix and Arden

Citations:

Gazette 20-Jun-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 982

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society HL 19-Jun-1997
Account taken of circumstances wihout ambiguity
The respondent gave advice on home income plans. The individual claimants had assigned their initial claims to the scheme, but later sought also to have their mortgages in favour of the respondent set aside.
Held: Investors having once . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Contract

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174059

Devon County Council v Webber and Another: CA 19 Apr 2002

The respondent was owner of land. Occasional substantial storms washed quantities of surface soil over the road. The claimant highway authority served notices required part of the land not to be used for arable purposes. After a further storm the authority sought damages for having to clean up the road. The farmer appealed the order against him.
Held: The defendants were not liable for the effect of a storm of an extreme once in 200 year level. Liability required reasonable forseeability. The notice had not been served in respect of this particular land, which also suggested unforseeability.

Judges:

Lord Justice Keene and Mr Justice Sumner

Citations:

Gazette 23-May-2002, Times 27-May-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 602

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Highways Act 1980 151(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Holbeck Hall Hotel Ltd and Another v Scarborough Borough Council CA 22-Feb-2000
Land owned by the defendant was below a cliff, at the top of which was the claimant’s hotel. The land slipped, and the hotel collapsed. Some landslip was foreseen from natural causes, but not to the extent of this occasion.
Held: The owner of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.171266

P and O Overseas Holdings Ltd v Rhys Braintree Ltd and Another: CA 12 Mar 2002

The first defendant appealed the award of interest on an order for specific performance of a contract for the sale of land. It had declined to complete the purchase because the seller had not been registered as proprietor of the land, and the transfer to it had not been stamped.
Held: The transfer to the seller would not be stamped until after completion, and that was not a good reason for delaying completion. Interest was payable from the date requested for completion since the seller was able to complete on that date.

Judges:

Sir Andrew Morritt, Vice-Chancellor, Lord Justice Mantell and Lord Justice Tuckey

Citations:

Times 05-Apr-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 296

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Land Registration Act 1925 37 110(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Urban Manor Limited v Sadiq CA 20-Feb-1997
Appeal by prospective purchaser of property from order that contract rescinded, and deposit forfeited. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Land, Registered Land

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.168084