Category: Land

Goodman and Others v Transport for London: UTLC 5 Apr 2016

UTLC COMPENSATION – Land Compensation Act 1973 Part I – dwelling houses – depreciation in value from physical factors caused by the Coulsdon Relief Road – relevance of noise evidence – valuation evidence based upon transactions and agreed values – transactions preferred – compensation determined at 1% and 4% of agreed switched off values.

[2016] UKUT 126 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Land

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.562445

Ho v Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council: UTLC 22 Mar 2016

UTLC COMPENSATION – compulsory purchase – maisonette – valuation by reference to costs of refurbishment – whether claimant occupied and qualified for home loss payment or basic loss payment – reinvestment costs – professional fees – interest – compensation determined at andpound;124,266.84

[2016] UKUT 151 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Land

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.562440

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 Norfolk. Over time the various water marks had moved with the sands.
Held: ‘ the assumption which was made below was correct, and that the seaward boundary of the Area the subject of the exclusive Right to take shellfish fluctuates with the passage of time as the low water mark moves. The Estate has exercised a prescriptive exclusive Right to take shellfish from the foreshore for a substantial period, during which the low water mark fluctuated to a significant extent over time, in circumstances where the evidence clearly establishes that the only way in which the shellfish were gathered was by individuals walking from the land when the tide was out. It is in those circumstances inherently very likely, indeed inevitable in terms of practical reality, that the putative Right would have been exercised over an area which was defined, or limited, by a shifting low tide mark. Thus, based on the inherently probable nature and extent of the actual exercise of the putative Right to fish by or on behalf of the Estate, we conclude that the boundary of the Area would have been low water as it was from time to time.’
‘If a right over land, the identity of which shifts, can be the subject of an express grant, then it appears to us to follow that, as has been assumed on all sides below, there is no reason why that should not apply equally to a right over land obtained by prescription.’
Unlike other instruments, grants by the Crown are not construed against the grantor (contra proferentem), and ‘the principle upon which the rule is based can, for what it is worth, properly be prayed in aid by the Crown in relation to a claim based on prescription, and therefore by the appellants in this case. It appears to us that that basic principle is that a court should not be too easily persuaded that the Crown has been deprived of a property or a right, given that the property or right is held for the public good. Therefore, in cases where it would otherwise be quite unclear whether a prescriptive right obtained against the Crown extended to certain property or certain rights, the principle may properly be invoked to justify the conclusion that it does not so extend. In the great majority of cases of prescription, as in most cases of express grant, this principle will take matters no further, as it is only where the extent of the right would otherwise be really unclear that the principle can come into play.’

Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hodge
[2016] UKSC 14, [2016] WLR(D) 181, [2016] 2 WLR 1126, UKSC 2014/0191, [2016] 2 WLR 1126, [2017] AC 599, [2016] 2 WLR 1148
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video
England and Wales
Citing:
At ChD – Loose v Lynn Shellfish Ltd and Others ChD 18-Apr-2013
The court was asked whether the defendants had infringed the claimant’s fishery rights in an area of the Wash.
Held: The private fishery extended seawards as far as the mean low-water mark of spring tides and the fishermen had been fishing in . .
At CA – Loose v Lynn Shellfish Ltd and Others CA 19-Jun-2014
The parties disputed the rights to take shellfish from the foreshore. Fishermen now appealed against a finding as to the extent of a private fishery from which they were excluded, in particular as to the rights overfomer sandbanks, at the western, . .
Cited – Le Strange v Rowe 1866
The court considered a claim for the right to take mussels from the foreshore.
Held: Erle CJ directed the jury that ‘there is evidence of what to my mind was a very strong act of ownership in respect to the taking of mussels’. . .
Cited – Le Strange v Lynn Corporation QBD 1868
(Extensive newspaper Report) (i) the Estate claimed its exclusive Right extended over Stubborn Sand but not over Ferrier Sand or other unconnected sandbanks, (ii) the decision effectively established the northern and southern boundaries of the Area . .
Cited – Malcolmson v O’Dea HL 1863
A private fishery may be established by prescription.
Willes J said: ‘The soil of ‘navigable tidal rivers,’ like the Shannon, so far as the tide flows and reflows, is prima facie in the Crown, and the right of fishery prima facie in the . .
Cited – Lord Chesterfield v Harris HL 17-Jul-1911
The House considered the nature and ownership of fishing rights on the River Wye. Freeholders in adjoining parishes had been fishing a non-tidal portion of the river for centuries, not by stealth or indulgence, but openly, continuously, as of right . .
Cited – The Attorney General for The Provinces British Columbia v The Attorney General for The Dominion of Canada and Another PC 2-Dec-1913
Canada – Lord Haldane set out the principles under which fishery rights might be acquired by prescription.
Fish stocks are a public resource, and there is no property in fish until they are caught. The right to fish in tidal waters or in the . .
Cited – Loose v Castleton CA 1978
The foreshore owner, and owner of fisheries rights sought damages from fishermen who had come from the sea to take mussels.
Held: The defendants’ appeals failed.
Bridge LJ stated: ‘That, then, being the law, one must next turn to see what . .
Cited – Bury v Pope 1587
The owner of land was held entitled to erect a house against his neighbour’s windows even though they had enjoyed light for over 30 years. ‘And lastly, the earth hath in law a great extent upwards, not only of water as hath been said, but of aire, . .
Cited – Bryant v Foot 1867
It is to be presumed from a period of 20 years’ user, and the lack of evidence inconsistent with there having been immemorial user or a lost modern grant, that a right which was within grant has been established. The apparent right should lie in . .
Cited – Aynsley v Glover ChD 1875
An original use of land for agricultural purposes does not accommodate a use of a supporting right of way to support use of dominant land for a caravan park or camping site. Such would be an unjustifiable increase in the burden.
Where the . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – 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 – The Rebeckah 26-Feb-1799
Lord Stowell discussed the rationale behind the inversion in cases involving the Crown of the principle that a clause is to be construed against the proposer saying that: ‘the prerogatives and rights and emoluments of the Crown being conferred upon . .
Cited – Lord Blantyre and Others v The Clyde Navigation Trustees SCS 3-Mar-1871
Where trustees were appointed by statute for the purpose of improving the navigation of a river, by deepening and widening and artificially confining its channel, and by other operations; and they and their predecessors had prosecuted this work for . .
Cited – Lord Blantyre and Master of Blantyre v Lord Advocate and Clyde Navigation Trustees SCS 12-Feb-1878
Property – Possession – Right to Foreshore of a Public Navigable River – Where a Barony Title is followed by Possession. . .
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 . .
Cited – Neill v Duke of Devonshire HL 1882
The House considered the right to a several fishery in the river Blackwater. There were letters patent granted by James I and Charles I. Held; Lord Selborne LC said: ‘These written titles (if the possession and enjoyment has been consistent with . .
Cited – Viscountess Rhondda’s Claim HL 1922
(Committee of Privileges of the House of Lords) Viscountess Rhondda asserted a right to sit in the House of Lords as a member, relying on the 1919 Act.
Held: It is incorrect for a court to draw conclusions from such elements of the . .
Cited – 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 – 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 – Baxendale v Instow Parish Council ChD 1982
Sir Robert Megarry V-C said: ‘Another instance of movable freeholds, and one that is very much in print in this case, may arise on a grant of foreshore; for such a grant may convey an estate in the foreshore in whatever position it is from time to . .
Cited – Bowring Services Ltd v Scottish Widows Fund and Life Assurance Society 1995
. .
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 – Crown Estate Commissioners v Roberts and Another ChD 13-Jun-2008
The defendant claimed ownership as Lord Marcher of St Davids of historical rights in foreshores in Pembrokeshire. The claimants sought removal of his cautions against first registration.
Held: Lewison J explored the history of manorial . .
Cited – Attorney-General v Chambers 8-Jul-1854
Lord Cranworth LC said that ‘Lord Hale gives as his reason for thinking that lands only covered by high spring tides do not belong to the Crown, that such lands are for the most part dry and manorable’, and that ‘the reasonable conclusion is, that . .
Cited – Southern Centre of Theosophy Incorporated v The State of South Australia PC 15-Dec-1981
(Australia) Lord Wilberforce described accretion as: ‘a doctrine which gives recognition to the fact that where land is bounded by water, the forces of nature are likely to cause changes in the boundary between the land and the water. Where these . .
Cited – Williams v Booth 14-Apr-1910
High Court of Australia – Griffith CJ said: ‘I do not think that any case of accretion is made out. The law as stated by Blackstone (2 Bl Com, p 262), is that ‘if this gain be by little and little, by small and imperceptible degrees, it shall go to . .
Cited – Mercer v Denne CA 1905
The court was asked whether the custom for fishermen to spread their nets to dry upon a privately owned beach, if otherwise established, could apply to land added by accretion to land over which it could be shown that the custom existed.
Land, Agriculture

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.562186

William Waddell of Papperthills v John Russell of Bentfoot: HL 10 Dec 1781

Servitude of Mineral Well – Possessory Judgment.- A party claimed a servitude over a mineral well in his neighbour’s field, near the mutual fence dividing their properties, and alleged the use and possession thereof for time immemorial. The Sheriff sustained his claim as a servitude. On advocation the interlocutor was varied, so as to leave out any finding as to a servitude. Held in the Court of Session and House of Lords, that he was entitled to the possessory judgment, as to his use of the well, and to have access thereto by a stile over the stone wall.

[1781] UKHL 2 – Paton – 579, (1781) 2 Paton 579
Bailii
Scotland

Land

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.562115

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 policy. The property was re-possessed and sold, leaving nothing for the second mortgagee after the first mortgage was repaid. At first instance ir was found that the relevant cause of action for the shortfall, which occurred on the sale by the mortgagee, was not an action on a specialty within s8, but a simple contract debt governed by section 5 of the 1980 Act and that the claim was statute barred after 6 years from the accrual of the cause of action.
Held: Bartlett applied. s20(1) was of no relevance, as the property had been sold and the principal sum was no longer secured by a mortgage on property. With no express covenant to repay the whole of the principal sum on a particular date or in a specified event, no date for the actual repayment of the principal sum could be identified in the mortgage deed. The claim for the shortfall was a simple contract debt, which became statute barred after 6 years.

Pill, Mummery, Latham LJJ
[2003] EWCA Civ 211, [2003] HLR 48
Bailii
Limitation Act 1980 8 5
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – 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 . .

Cited by:
Cited – Wilkinson and Another v West Bromwich Building Society CA 30-Jul-2004
The Society had repossessed and sold the mortgagors’ house in 1990. It knew then that there was a shortfall, but took no further recovery proceedings until 2002. What was the date from which the relevant limitation period began to run? Though the . .
Cited – West Bromwich Building Society v Wilkinson HL 30-Jun-2005
The Society had taken possession of a property in 1989. It located the defendants many years later and sought payment of the excess after deduction of the proceeds of sale, and for interest. The borrowers claimed the debt was expired by limitation . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Limitation

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.181304

John Shaw Stewart, Esq v The Magistrates and Council of Greenock: HL 2 Mar 1779

Held in the Court of Session, that by law, the ground to be chosen for erecting a new churchyard, is a burden upon the heritors of the parish; and the ground contiguous or adjoining to the old churchyard is to be set off, reserving to the heritor relief for the value against the other heritors, unless otherwise agreed on. Where action had proceeded and had been discussed on the merits, without objection to certain parties being called, appeal was taken to the House of Lords, where the objection was taken for the first time. Interlocutors in consequence reversed, without prejudice to call additional parties, or bring a new action. Question: whether a superior is bound to grant a feucharter to a kirk session, of ground for churchyard.

[1779] UKHL 2 – Paton – 486
Bailii
Scotland

Land

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.562034

John Ross of Auchnacloich v Murdoch Mackenzie of Ardross: HL 29 Apr 1776

Exclusive Title – Prescription – Minority – Res Jodicata. – A deed was executed in favour of an infant, narrating that the granter was on the eve of going abroad, and conveying his estate. Thereafter debts were contracted by him, and a party having obtained right to certain adjudications over his estate, and obtained charter and infeftment thereon, and having thereafter obtained possession of the estate, and held it for more than forty years, held that the granter of the deed was not divested of the estate, and that the adjudging creditor had acquired an exclusive title by the positive prescription, and the minorities pleaded not sufficient to elide it. Also, that the decree formerly pronounced in the same matter was res judicata.

[1776] UKHL 3 – Paton – 676
Bailii
Scotland

Land

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.561841

Jean Allan, and Donald Smith, Her Husband v Arthur Sinclair, Esq, and Isaac Grant, W S, His Attorney: HL 13 Nov 1776

Deed – Implied Revocation – Error in Procedure.- A party executed a deed, conveying his whole heritable and moveable estate to his four sisters and their heirs-male, according to certain proportions, in 1764, reserving power to revoke, but declaring it to be good in so far as not revoked. He afterwards married, and in 1766 executed a new deed, conveying his whole heritable and moveable estate to the heirs of his own body, of that marriage. There was no revocation of the first deed. He thereafter died, leaving a son, who only survived his father three months: Held, on failure of his issue, that the first deed remained good; and as there was no implied revocation of it by what was done, and no express revocation, the same was to be read as if it had within it the deed of 1776, and so excluded the heirs-at-law as such.

[1776] UKHL 2 – Paton – 403
Bailii
Scotland

Land

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.561844

John Deas and Others, Feuars In Prince’S Street, Within The Extended Royalty of The City of Edinburgh, and Proprietors of Houses There v The Lord Provost, Magistrates, and Council of Edinburgh: HL 10 Apr 1772

This was a bill of suspension and interdict applied for by the proprietors and feuars of the houses in Prince’s Street, against the Magistrates and Town Council of Edinburgh, to interdict and prohibit the building and erecting houses opposite their feus, in Prince’s Street gardens, then called the North Loch, in violation of the Plan and sales of these feus, and of the original proposals and resolutions of the Magistrates, held out, and agreed to, by them, in granting their feu rights. These resolutions were embodied in the acts of Parliament obtained for extending the royalty, which stated and described the objects to be, ‘to enlarge and beautify the town, by opening new streets to the north and south, removing the markets and shambles, and turning the North Loch into a canal, with walks and terraces on each side.’ And the plan drawn out and adopted by the Magistrates and shewn to the feuars showed these grounds (Prince’s Street gardens) so laid out for pleasure grounds and walks.

[1772] UKHL 2 – Paton – 259, (1772) 2 Paton 259
Bailii
Scotland

Land

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.561693

Archibald Edmonstone of Duntreath v Campbell Edmonstone, Esq and Others: HL 15 Apr 1771

Entail – Institute – Fetters.- Held, that where the prohibitory, irritant, and resolutive clauses in a strict entail, are directed against the heirs of entail merely, these terms do not include the institute, as he is not an heir of entail, but a special disponee; reversing the judgment of the Court of Session.

[1771] UKHL 2 – Paton – 255, (1771) 2 Paton 255
Bailii
Scotland

Land

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.561683

The Earl of Roseberry v Wm Foulis, Esq and Others, The Heirs-Substitutes and Creditors of The Entailed Estate of Primrose: HL 4 Feb 1770

Entail – Prohibition against Contracting Debts. –
An entail was executed of an estate, with prohibitory, irritant, and resolutive clauses, directed against the contraction of debt, or burdening the estate, or selling or alienating the same. A subsequent heir of entail having contracted debt, a succeeding heir of entail applied to the Court, for liberty to sell part of the estate for payment thereof: Held, that by the conception of the entail, the pursuer could not sell for the payment of debts. Affirmed in the House of Lords, on the special ground, that the debts were contracted since the death of the entailer, contrary to his intention.

[1770] UKHL 3 – Paton – 654, (1770) 3 Paton 654
Bailii
Scotland

Land

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.561661

James Simson v Alexander M’Millan, and William M’Donald, Writer, His Attorney, Responents: HL 16 Mar 1770

Sale – Absolute Right or Right in Security.-
Circumstances in which a sale of houses by auction was held to be unwarrantable, rigorous, and unfair, from the conduct of the seller, the conduct of the judge, and from the price at which it was sold. Also circumstances in which certain letters proved that an absolute disposition was a right merely in security.

[1770] UKHL 2 – Paton – 227
Bailii
Scotland

Land

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.561670

Patten, Representatives of Richardson v Carruthers, Clerk, Dunbar, Dunbar: HL 24 Mar 1770

Power to Grant Leases of Mines – Implied Recall of Factory.-
Two persons acted in this country as trustees for a person abroad, owner of an entailed estate in Scotland. Their previous letters advised them to enter into agreements in regard to the lead mines on the estate, and that any such, entered into by them, would be affirmed and ratified by him. They entered into an agreement with the appellants for a lease of the mines of the estate, binding themselves, so soon as powers to that effect arrived from Antigua, to grant them a regular lease. On this agreement possession followed. These powers arrived; but, before the regular lease was granted, the owner’s affairs became embarrassed, and he sent home to Scotland his son with powers to raise money on his estate, either by lease, assignation, or conveyance of the same, and conferring on him power to grant deeds to that effect. The son granted letter agreeing to give a lease of the same mines to other parties; Held, reversing the judgment of the Court of Session, that the second factory was not meant as an implied revocation of the first, but was to be viewed only as a power to raise money on the estate, and that the trustees’ obligations remained good to grant a lease to the appellants in terms of the first agreement with them.

[1770] UKHL 2 – Paton – 238
Bailii
Scotland

Land

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.561675

Sir Ludovick Grant, &C v Alexander Brodie, Esq: HL 25 Apr 1769

This was a dispute about the right to the mussel-scalps in the river Findhorn.
A grant from the Crown to Ross of Kilravock, of the mussel-scalps in the River Findhorn, which is a public river, supported by long possession, was preferred before a similar grant of later date, in favour of the appellants.

[1769] UKHL 6 – Paton – 779
Bailii
Scotland

Land

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.561658

Midland Railway Company v Gribble: CA 1895

The Act required the railway company to make gates and passages over the railway for the accommodation of the owners and occupiers of land adjoining the railway. The conveyance to the railway company reserved to the landowner and his successors in title a right of way over the level crossing that was made.
Held: The right granted by the Act to a landowner owning land on both sides of the railway as an easement. The landowner on subsequently conveying away land on one side, without granting a right of way over the retained land and without reserving a right of way over the land conveyed away, was held to have abandoned his easement over the level crossing.

[1895] 2 Ch 827
Railway Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 68
England and Wales

Land

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.200659

The York Buildings Company, and Their Creditors v James Ferguson of Pitfour, Esq: HL 21 Mar 1780

Sale of Lands – Wadset – Decree of Sale.-
The York Buildings Company purchased the forfeited estate of the late Earl Marischall, together with the right of redemption of the wadsets and superiorities thereof. There were two wadsets on the lands of Clerkhill and Downieshill, being part of the Marischall estate. The Marischall estate, along with others, was afterwards let on lease to Sir Archibald Grant and Mr. Garden; and were thereafter ordered to be sold by Act of Parliament, as so let on lease. Neither the articles as to the lease, nor the Act of Parliament, mentioned any thing about the wadset lands of Clerkhill and Downieshill, although the prepared state and scheme of the rental included them in the computation of the rental and price at which they were to be exposed. The purchaser insisted that they were included, and ought to go into his charter, as the decree of sale conveyed to him ‘all and hail the late Earl Murischall’s lands in the county of Aberdeen, except certain parts therein mentioned.’ Held, that the right of reversion was not included in the sale, and still belonged to the York Buldings Company.

[1780] UKHL 2 – Paton – 541, (1780) 2 Paton 541
Bailii
Scotland

Land

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.561500

Colonel James St Clair of St Clair v The Magistrates and Town Council of The Burgh of Dysart: HL 8 Mar 1780

Servitudes – OF Bleaching – Of Foot Road – Of Taking Water – Prescription – Use and Possession – A servitude of bleaching linen sustained; also a servitude in favour of the inhabitants of a burgh, of taking water from the wells in a neighbouring heritor’s property for family use, as well as a servitude acquired by immemorial use of a right to a foot road to these wells. Also that the burgh, as a corporate body, by the charter of the burgh, had a sufficient title to acquire such servitudes, by prescription and immemorial use and possession of its inhabitants.

[1780] UKHL 2 – Paton – 554, (1780) 2 Paton 554
Bailii
Scotland

Land

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.561498

Alexander Lyall, Younger of Garden v George Skene and William Milne: HL 9 Feb 1768

Union – Dispensing Clause – Infeftment.-
Objections were stated to a sasine, on the ground that it was not taken on the several tenements of lands-these, although originally united by a clause of union, being now discontiguous, and the union dissolved by a sale of part: Held, in the House of Lords, that the usage of granting dispensation clauses, allowing sasine to be taken on a part for the whole, was material, if established in this case, but appeal dismissed, in consequence of no evidence of the usage being adduced.

[1768] UKHL 2 – Paton – 138, (1768) 2 Paton 138
Bailii
Scotland

Land

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.561003

Lord Cathcart and Others v John Stewart N Shaw of Greenock, By His Guardian: HL 19 Mar 1756

Entail – Powers of Feuing and Leasing- Interest of Debt.-
1. Question, whether an heir of entail in possession is bound to keep down the interest of the debt on the estate during his possession. 2. Where power was reserved in the entail to grant feus and long tacks. Held that the powers exercised in virtue of this reservation did not fall within the fair and rational administration of the estate, and therefore feus of the greater part of the estate, together with leases of the mansion house and grounds, and sale of growing wood, reduced.

[1756] UKHL 1 – Paton – 618
Bailii
Scotland

Land

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.558233

Diggens and Others, Re (No 2): LT 21 Jul 2000

There was a proposal to erect five houses in the gardens of houses subject to restrictive covenants.
Held: The existing restrictions did secure practical benefits. The Tribunal referred to a number of factors, one of which was ‘the prevention of nuisance and annoyance during building works’

Mr Clarke FRICS
[2000] EWLands LP – 27 – 1999, [2001] EGLR 1
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Shephard and others v Turner and Another CA 23-Jan-2006
The appellants challenged the removal of a restrictive covenant on a neighbour’s house restricting further building on the land to allow further house in the garden. It was in a small close of houses all erected, and the covenant imposed, in 1952. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.225605

Sykes and Another v Taylor-Rose and Another: CA 27 Feb 2004

The appellants purchased a property from the respondents. The house had been the site of a partiularly horrendous murder in 1980, but the respondents did not disclose the fact.
Held: The doctrine of caveat emptor still had application. As regards the replies to preliminary enquiries, the question asked was subjective and had to be answered honestly. The question was confined to information the purchaser might be entitled to know. The judge was not incorrect.

Lord Justice Peter Gibson Lord Justice Mantell Sir William Aldous
[2004] EWCA Civ 299
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – William Sindall Plc v Cambridgeshire County Council CA 21-May-1993
Land was bought for development, but the purchaser later discovered a sewage pipe which very substantially limited its development potential. The existence of the pipe had not been disclosed on the sale, being unknown to the seller.
Held: . .
Cited – Economides v Commercial Union Assurance Co Plc CA 22-May-1997
The insured represented to the insurers that to ‘the best of his knowledge and belief’ the full cost of replacing all the contents in his flat as new was pounds 16,000. He contended that that meant that he honestly believed that pounds 16,000 was . .
Cited – Taylor v Hamer CA 2002
The parties were buyers and sellers of land. The seller’s husband removed a large area of flagstones after the buyer’s first inspection but before exchange. He seeded over the land so that, on a second inspection by the buyer’s solicitor, the . .
Cited – Gran Gelato Ltd v Richcliff (Group) Ltd ChD 1992
The claimant wished to purchase an underlease from the first defendant. The claimant’s solicitors inquired of the second defendants, a firm of solicitors acting for the first defendant, whether any provisions in the headlease might affect the length . .
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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Contract

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.194673

Prudential Assurance Company Limited v Waterloo Real Estate Inc: CA 22 Jan 1999

Where title to land was to be established by adverse possession, the claim had to be unequivocal only in the sense that the intention to possess was clear to the world. It was unnecessary for the dispossessed party to know of the title he lost.

Times 08-Feb-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 642
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal From – Prudential Assurance Company Ltd v Waterloo Real Estate Inc ChD 13-May-1998
The owner of a party wall who had allowed a neighbour exclusive use of it without objection for a period over twelve years, could lose his interest in the wall by the adverse possession of that neighbour. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Limitation

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.145557

Morgan and Another v Pooley and Another: QBD 7 Oct 2010

The claimants had bought a property from the defendants and now sought damages in misrepresentation saying that the defendants had failed to disclose a planning application for an adjacent farm as regards a track bordering the property.
Held: The claim failed. The court expressed its view as to the effective loss of privacy, and the diminution of value. Even so, the court found that the defendants had been unaware of the proposed development, and that therefore there had been no misrepresentation. There had been two proposed developments by the neighbours, and it was possible that they had assumed that any paperwork related to the first. The contract had in any event included a clause by which the claimant disregarded any representation made by the defendants. Whilst in some situations of such a clause being buried in a contract, the court might not give it effect, here the clause was open and emphasised and well known to the solicitors at least, and was effective.

Edwards-Stuart J
[2010] EWHC 2447 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – William Sindall Plc v Cambridgeshire County Council CA 21-May-1993
Land was bought for development, but the purchaser later discovered a sewage pipe which very substantially limited its development potential. The existence of the pipe had not been disclosed on the sale, being unknown to the seller.
Held: . .
Cited – E A Grimstead and Son Ltd v McGarrigan CA 27-Oct-1999
The court considered the effect of an acknowledgement of non-reliance clause: ‘There are, as it seems to me, at least two good reasons why the courts should not refuse to give effect to an acknowledgement of non-reliance in a commercial contract . .
Cited – Watford Electronics Ltd v Sanderson CFL Ltd CA 23-Feb-2001
The plaintiff had contracted to purchase software from the respondent. The system failed to perform, and the defendant sought to rely upon its exclusion and limitation of liability clauses.
Held: It is for the party claiming that a contract . .
Cited – Peekay Intermark Ltd v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd CA 6-Apr-2006
Moore-Bick LJ discussed whether the court should give effect to a non-reliance clause in a contract saying: ‘It is common to include in certain kinds of contracts an express acknowledgement by each of the parties that they have not been induced to . .

Cited by:
Distinguished – Cleaver and Others v Schyde Investments Ltd CA 29-Jul-2011
The parties had contracted for the sale of land. The purchaser secured the rescinding of the contract for innocent misrepresentation. A notice of a relevant planning application had not been passed on by the seller’s solicitors. The seller appealed . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Contract

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.424971

Wheeler v Copes: QBD 1981

A labour-only subcontractor was provided with an inadequate ladder by the defendant. He was injured using it.
Held: The defendant was found liable.
However, Chapman J said: ‘The plaintiff puts his case to a considerable extent on the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957, but it seems to me that there may be considerable difficulty in relation to that because the Act is dealing with an occupier. It is true that it covers moveable structures, such as vessels, vehicles and aircraft. I do not doubt that in appropriate circumstances it could apply to a ladder, but I see considerable difficulty in saying that once the defendant had handed the ladder over to the plaintiff and his partner for the purpose of the bricklaying the defendant was still the occupier of this ladder.’

Chapman J
[1981] 3 All ER 405
Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957
England and Wales
Cited by:
Distinguished on facts – Leitch v Reid QBNI 27-Jun-2003
The claimant was injured falling from a ladder on the defendant’s farm. The ladder was home built.
Held: The ladder was kept by the defendants for maintenance purposes, and there was an implicit aagreement that the claimant should use it. The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Health and Safety, Land

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.184178

The Master of Errol v N Keith: SCS 9 Jul 1563

Gif ony man obtenis ane gift of non-entres, and be vertue thairof raisis summoundis aganis the heritabill possessouris of the samin landis, and thairefter, pendente lite, deceissis, his air is preferrit to all uther persounis obtenand ane uther gift of non-entres of the samin landis, after the dait of the gift foirsaid.

[1563] Mor 5114
Bailii

Scotland, Land

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.560742

Robert Pringle of Clifton v Duke of Roxburgh, and Mr M’Dougall, His Grace’s Lessee of Caverton Mill: HL 2 Feb 1767

Servitude of Aquaeductus – Part and Pertinent – Possession.- Circumstances in which found, that a party had a right to the run of water, or a servitude of aqueduct, through a neighbour’s lands, without any express grant, but as part and pertinent of a mill; and was entitled to access to do all acts to keep it in repair; and had good right to question the acts of the proprietor, through whose lands it flowed, in so far as these tended to injure or diminish the flow of water to his mill.

[1767] UKHL 2 – Paton – 134, (1767) 2 Paton 134
Bailii
Scotland

Land

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.560699

Archibald and James Canison v David Marshall: HL 27 Jan 1764

Reduction – Force and Fear. – A reduction was raised of certain deeds impetrated from the respondent’s mother, under the threat that the deed granted in her favour by her father was forged, and that he could procure them to be hanged for it, whereby she, with consent of her husband, was induced to grant a disposition of the estate left her by her father, and also to execute a renunciation of her right: Held these deeds invalid and ineffectual, and reduced accordingly.

[1764] UKHL 6 – Paton – 759, (1764) 6 Paton 759
Bailii
Scotland

Land

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.560630

John Spottiswoode of Spottiswoode v James Burnett, Esq of Craigend: HL 22 Mar 1763

Superior and Vassal – Non-Entry – Penalties. –
In a declarator of the right of superiority combined with an action of non-entry. Held (1), That the right of superiority was in the Crown and not in the appellant. Reversed in the House of Lords. (2) In the House of Lords the vassal was held not to be liable for the penalties of non-entry, that is, the full maills and duties of the lands, except from the date of citation in this declaratory action.

(1763) 6 Paton 747, [1763] UKHL 6 – Paton – 747
Bailii
Scotland

Land

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.560596

The Right Honourable John Earl of Rothes, The Right Honourable William Lord Viscount Barrington, of The Kingdom of Ireland, and Others v John Philip, Esq, Auditor of The Revenue In Scotland: HL 16 Jan 1761

Entail – Recording.-
Held that the Act 1685, authorizing the recording of entails, applied to entails executed before that Act was passed, and that such entails were not good against creditors unless recorded.

[1761] UKHL 2 – Paton – 52, (1761) 2 Paton 52
Bailii
Scotland

Land

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.560602

John Young of Newhall, Esq v Margaret, The Widow of John Scot Nisbet of Craigentinny, Esq, Deceased; Chambre Lewis, Esq, and Thomas Tod, Disponees of The Said John Scott Nisbet: HL 21 Feb 1765

Entails – General Clause – Prohibitions against Sales.-
An entail contained a general clause, prohibiting the heirs from doing any fact or deed in prejudice of the succeeding heirs of entail, but no special prohibition against sales: Held the general clause not sufficient to protect against sales.

[1765] UKHL 2 – Paton – 98, (1765) 2 Paton 98
Bailii
Scotland

Land

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.560606

Grundiston v Lawson: SCS 6 Mar 1561

In the action and cause pursued by David Grundiston against James Lawson, for reduction of an infeftment of a tenement of land lying in the town of Cupar of Fife, made by the said David to the said James, it was alleged by the said David, That when he analzied the said lands, he was within the age of 14 years, or thereby, and therefore the said alienation was null in itself, and ought to be reduced, and all that followed thereupon. It was answered by the said James, That the said David was above the age of 14 years when he made the said alienation, and never made revocation thereof when he came to perfect age given to him of the law for revocation of any thing done by him in his minority, and so he being past the perfect age, together with his four years before the raising of the said summons and intenting of the said plea of reduction, he might never come against the said alienation; which allegeance of the defender’s was found relevant by the Lords, and given to his probation.

[1561] Mor 8978
Bailii
Scotland

Land

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.560404

Triplerose Ltd v Mill House RTM Company: UTLC 16 Feb 2016

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – RIGHT TO MANAGE – failure to include prescribed notes in notices of invitation to participate – whether notices invalid — failure to specify registered office of RTM Company in claim notice as address for service of counter-notice – whether claim notice invalid – non-qualifying tenants as members of RTM company – consequences – section 73, 74, 78 and 80, Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 – appeal allowed

[2016] UKUT 80 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Land

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.560318

Bourne Leisure (Hopton) Ltd v Great Yarmouth Port Authority: UTLC 22 Feb 2016

UTLC COMPENSATION – Injurious affection – preliminary issues – whether compensation may be claimed for loss of beach and cliff caused by change in tidal flows as a result of construction of Great Yarmouth outer harbour – whether cost of sea defence works recoverable as compensation or claim is restricted to diminution in the value of land – whether claim time barred – claim allowed to proceed – s.4 Great Yarmouth Outer Harbour Act 1986 and s.10 Compulsory Purchase Act 1965

[2016] UKUT 44 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Land

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.560311

Stevens v Ismail: UTLC 4 Feb 2016

UTLC RESTRICTIVE COVENANT – JURISDICTION – leasehold covenants – registered lease – whether deed of variation caused a surrender and re-grant – less than 25 years since variation – s.84(12), Law of Property Act 1925 – s.58, Land Registration Act 2002 – covenant ‘to use and occupy . . solely and exclusively as a self-contained residential flat’ – whether restrictive

[2016] UKUT 43 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Land

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.560315

Phoenix Developments (Jpj) Ltd v Lancashire County Council: UTLC 26 Jan 2016

UTLC COMPENSATION – Compulsory Purchase – acquiring authority exercising option to purchase – purchase price determined by expert appointed under option agreement – land then vested by use of compulsory powers – reference for compensation – application to strike out – whether Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine compensation – section 1, Land Compensation Act 1961 – application dismissed.

[2016] UKUT 38 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Land

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.560310

Piper and Another v Wakeford and Another: CA 17 Dec 2008

The parties disputed the boundary between their land.
Held: The judge had been entitled to rely on the evidence he had accepted, and had been entitled to find on the factual basis asserted.

Ward LJ, Lloyd LJ, Rimer LJ
[2008] EWCA Civ 1378
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Watcham v Attorney-General of the East Africa Protectorate PC 1919
The Watchams held land along the bank of the Nairobi River. It had been conveyed to them by the Crown by a certificate under the East African Land Regulations. The certificate gave the area transferred as ’66 3/4 acres, or thereabouts’, but included . .
Cited – Ali v Lane and Another CA 21-Nov-2006
The parties disputed the boundary between their neighbouring plots of land.
Held: In the modern law the conveyance (parchment or not) is undoubtedly the starting point. Where information contained in the conveyance is unclear or ambiguous, it . .
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 – F L Schuler AG v Wickman Machine Tools Sales Limited HL 4-Apr-1973
The parties entered an agreement to distribute and sell goods in the UK. They disagreed as to the meaning of a term governing the termination of the distributorship.
Held: The court can not take into account the post-contractual conduct or . .
Cited – Bradford and Another v James and others CA 18-Jul-2008
Boundary dispute. . .
Cited – Haycocks and Another v Neville and Another CA 18-Jan-2007
. .
Cited – Clarke and Clarke v O’Keefe and O’Keefe CA 21-Oct-1997
The plaintiff had bought from the vendor a piece of land, bordering a field retained by him. The conveyance plan showed a vegetation boundary with a dotted line, but its precise position on the ground was unclear to them both. Accordingly, they went . .
Cited – Beale v Harvey CA 28-Nov-2003
Land had been divided into three lots on its development, but the site plan did not match the line of a fence actually erected.
Held: The court was not bound by the Watcham case, and would not follow it to allow reference to the later . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.278820

Lord Advocate v Marquess of Zetland: HL 11 Nov 1919

The Crown is not entitled to assess casualties of composition payable to its estate of superiority at one year’s real free rent of the subjects, and consequently such one year’s real free rent does not fall to be considered in calculating the compensation to be paid for the redemption of the casualties under the Feudal Casualties (Scotland) Act 1914.

Lord Chancellor (Birkenhead), Viscount Haldane, Viscount Cave, Lord Dunedin, and Lord Shaw
[1919] UKHL 26, 57 SLR 26
Bailii
Scotland

Land

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.632789

Hampshire Waste Services Ltd v Persons Intending to Trespass and/or Trespassing upon Incinerator Sites: ChD 2003

The court granted an interlocutory injunction to restrain unknown trespassers from entering land.
The Vice-Chancellor gave the following guidance : (1) First, that the description of the defendant should not involve a legal conclusion, such as is implicit in the use of the word ‘trespass’.
(2) Secondly, that it is undesirable to use a description such as ‘intending to trespass’, because that depends on the subjective intention of the individual which is not necessarily known to the outside world, and in particular the claimant, and is susceptible of change’.

Sir Andrew Morritt V-C
[2003] EWHC 1738 (Ch), [2003] 42 EG 126, [2004] Env LR 9
Bailii
England and Wales
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. . .
Cited – Vastint Leeds Bv v Persons Unknown ChD 24-Sep-2018
The claimant company sought a final injunction to prevent others occupying its land in Leeds. It was a quia timet injunction anticipating future acts of occupation by caravans, fly-tipping and use of the land for illegal raves.
Held: The . .
Cited – Cameron v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd SC 20-Feb-2019
The Court was asked in what circumstances is it permissible to sue an unnamed defendant? The respondent was injured when her car collided with another. The care was insured but by a driver giving a false name. The car owner refused to identify him. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.381711

UK Oil and Gas Investments Plc and Others v Persons Unknown Who Are Protestors: ChD 3 Sep 2018

Application by the Claimants for interim injunctions until trial or further order. The injunctions sought relate to protests at sites in Surrey and Sussex where the Claimants carry out conventional oil or gas exploration and/or extraction.

John Male QC (sitting as a Judge of the Chancery Division)
[2018] EWHC 2252 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Cameron v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd SC 20-Feb-2019
The Court was asked in what circumstances is it permissible to sue an unnamed defendant? The respondent was injured when her car collided with another. The care was insured but by a driver giving a false name. The car owner refused to identify him. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.625508

Gyle Shopping Centre General Partners Ltd v Marks and Spencer Plc: SCS 25 Mar 2014

Outer House Court of Session – The pursuer avers that it has entered into an agreement with Primark Stores Ltd for the erection and leasing of a new retail store building which would abut the existing shopping centre and would be constructed on currently unbuilt-upon land including part of the car parking area. In this action the pursuer seeks declarator (i) that the defender has given its unqualified written consent to the use by the pursuer of this land for the construction of a new building to be leased to Primark; (ii) that it is entitled to construct the building and would not be acting unlawfully or in breach of the defender’s lease in so doing; and (iii) that the defender would be barred from taking any action to prevent construction on the ground that there is absence of agreement complying with the terms of either the Requirements of Writing (Scotland) Act 1995 or the defender’s lease. The defender contends that it has not given its agreement in probative writing to the construction of the building and accordingly that the pursuer is not entitled to commence construction.

Lord Tyre
[2014] ScotCS CSOH – 59
Bailii
Requirements of Writing (Scotland) Act 1995
Scotland

Land, Contract

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.523283

Davis (As Trustee In Bankruptcy of Jackson) v Jackson and Another: ChD 7 Apr 2017

W and H were at all times estranged. W bought a house, but later, in order to get a mortgage, it was put in their joint names. They later expressly declared equal interests. At no time did H either contribute to or live in the house. On H’s insolvency the claimant receiver sought a share of the house. W argued that this would amount to an unjust enrichment.
Held: ‘the effect of the express declaration of trust in the Trust Deed and the TR1 form was to vest a beneficial interest in property in Mr. Jackson. It is inherent in the nature of a proprietary interest in land that the owner of the interest can sit back and do nothing and yet still be entitled to benefit from any appreciation in the capital value of the property. Accordingly, it cannot be said that, without more, a beneficial co-owner of land who shares in the increased value of the land has thereby been unjustly enriched. The retention of such benefit would not be unjust, because it is what the owner of an interest in property is entitled to.’ and ‘the correct apportionment of the proceeds of sale of the Property would be first to split the net proceeds equally between the Trustee and Mrs. Jackson, and then to give Mrs. Jackson additional credit for one half of all the payments she has made under the mortgage(s) from the date the Property was purchased to the date upon which the Property is sold. There should be no credits in respect of other payments which Mrs. Jackson has made, and no debits in respect of her occupation of the Property.’

Snowden J
[2017] EWHC 698 (Ch), [2017] WLR(D) 264
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales

Land, Trusts

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.581730

Robert Lindley Ltd v East Riding of Yorkshire Council: UTLC 11 Jan 2016

UTLC COMPENSATION – Flooding- claim for crop losses caused by diversion of floodwaters away from built property – whether respondent Council acting as lead local flood authority under the provisions of ss 14 and 14A Land Drainage Act 1991 – whether assistance from, and actions of, the Environment Agency and the Fire Service given as agents of the Council under doctrine of agency – compensation agreed at andpound;14,500.

[2016] UKUT 6 (LC)
Bailii
Land Drainage Act 1991 14 814A
England and Wales

Land

Updated: 09 January 2022; Ref: scu.558934

Robert Anderson, Mason v James Anderson, Late of Crookhill: HL 26 Feb 1759

Sale – Security for Price –
Circumstances in which held, where a purchaser did not find satisfactory security for payment of the price within the time specified in the minute of sale, though cautioners were offered, but rejected as insufficient, the seller was entitled to sell the property to another.

[1759] UKHL 2 – Paton – 22
Bailii
Scotland

Land, Contract

Updated: 09 January 2022; Ref: scu.558277

Mrs Mary Monypenny, Widow of John Ayton Younger, and Mary and Jean Their Daughters; and James Ayton (Formerly Monypenny) v Thomas Ayton, Second Son To John Ayton The Elder, and Brother To John Ayton The Younger: HL 11 Mar 1757

Prescription of Entail – Minority –
An entail was executed of an estate, but allowed to lie dormant for eighty years, during which the succeeding heirs had possessed on a different title in fee-simple. Held that the limitations in the entail were worked off and prescribed by the forty years’ possession had on this absolute title, and that the minority of heirs substitutes of entail did not interrupt the prescription.

[1757] UKHL 1 – Paton – 649
Bailii
Scotland

Land

Updated: 09 January 2022; Ref: scu.558240

Mrs Jacobina Clarke v The Earl of Home: HL 16 Apr 1753

Prescription of Adjudication.-
Held that adjudication with charter and infeftment were not sufficient to save from the negative and positive prescription, no possession having followed of the lands adjudged, these having never been out of the proprietor’s possession; and possession of a part not being sufficient to interrupt prescription as to the whole, but only the part so possessed.

[1753] UKHL 1 – Paton – 533
Bailii
Scotland

Land

Updated: 09 January 2022; Ref: scu.558213

Target Holdings Ltd v Priestley and Another: ChD 8 Apr 1999

An oral contract by which a lender agreed to accept repayments of arrears under a mortgage at a certain rate was valid in law despite non-compliance with the section. It was however a contract of disposition, not an executory contract and not caught. A compromise of repayments under a mortgage was valid despite lack of formality.

Gazette 08-Apr-1999, Gazette 06-May-1999, Times 13-May-1999
Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 2
England and Wales

Land, Contract

Updated: 09 January 2022; Ref: scu.89710

Nata Lee Ltd v Abid and Another: CA 18 Dec 2014

The Court pointed to the need to treat litigants in person in the same was as others: ‘ the fact that a party (whether an individual or a corporate body) is not professionally represented is not of itself a reason for the disapplication of rules, orders and directions, or for the disapplication of that part of the overriding objective which now places great value on the requirement that they be obeyed by litigants. In short, the CPR do not, at least at present, make specific or separate provision for litigants in person. There may be cases in which the fact that a party is a litigant in person has some consequence in the determination of applications for relief from sanctions, but this is likely to operate at the margins.’

Briggs LJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 1652, [2015] 2 P and CR 3
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Barton v Wright Hassal Llp SC 21-Feb-2018
The claimant litigant in person purported to serve his statement of claim by email, but had not first sought the defendant’s agreement as required. The solicitors allowed the limitation period to expire without acknowledging service. The claimant . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.540241

Sir Windham Carmichael Anstruther, Bart v Mrs Marian Anstruther: 1836

An heir of line taking an entailed estate upon his father’s death, cannot by the law of Scotland claim his share of his father’s personalty as next of kin without first collating the entailed estate, though the entail was not created by his father, but by a more remote ancestor.

[1836] EngR 226, (1836) 4 Cl and Fin 33, (1836) 7 ER 13
Commonlii
Scotland

Land

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.314558

Phipps v Rochester Corporation: QBD 1955

A 12 year old child claimed damages having been injured trespassing on the defendant’s premises. He had fallen into a trench on the construction site.
Held: An occupier who resigns himself to the occasional and perhaps inevitable presence of trespassers on his premises is not to be regarded as having assumed the obligations of a licensor. The court, looking at occupier’s liability to trespassing children, noted the difference between big children and little children, that is ‘children who know what they are about and children who do not’.
Devlin J stated: ‘But the responsibility for the safety of little children must rest primarily on the parents; it is their duty to see that such children are not allowed to wander about by themselves, or, at the least, to satisfy themselves that the places to which they do allow their children to go unaccompanied are safe for them to go to. It would not be socially desirable if parents were, as a matter of course, able to shift the burden of looking after their children from their own shoulders to those of persons who happen to have accessible bits of land. Different considerations may well apply to public parks or to recognised playing grounds where parents allow the children to go and accompanied in the reasonable belief that they are safe.’

Devlin J
[1955] 1 All ER 129
England and Wales

Personal Injury, Land, Torts – Other, Children

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.190059

Komu And Others v Komu: ECJ 17 Dec 2015

ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Scope – Exclusive jurisdiction – Article 22(1) – Proceedings concerning rights in rem in immovable property – Concept – Action to terminate, by way of sale, the co-ownership in undivided shares of immovable property

C-605/14, [2015] EUECJ C-605/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:833
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 44/2001
European

Land

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.557013

Watson, Trustee For Heir of Hamilton of Redhouse, and The Other Creditors v Glass, and Other Children of The Deceased etc: HL 5 Dec 1744

Tailzie – Clause, Provision to Daughters – Obligation – ‘Heirs Female.’ – An entail bound the heirs of entail ‘to pay his daughters and heirs female,’ 10,000 merks, The entailer had only one daughter, and his son, who had succeeded under the entail, having fallen into debt, his trustee objected to pay this provision, on the ground that it was conceived only in favour of such daughter as should succeed as ‘heir female’ Held her entitled to the provision, and affirmed in the House of Lords.

[1744] UKHL 6 – Paton – 681
Bailii
Scotland

Trusts, Land

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.556822

William, Earl of Sutherland v Ross, Anderson, Et Alii: HL 25 Mar 1743

A vassal having incurred recognition by alienating part of his lands, and the superior, upon his subsequent forfeiture, having, in his exceptions taken before the Court of Session against the survey made by the trustees, founded his claim solely upon 1st Geo. I. c. 20, and obtained decree, it was found not competent for him thereafter to insist in a declarator of recognition on the ground of the alienation.

[1743] UKHL 1 – Paton – 351, (1743) 1 Paton 351
Bailii
Scotland

Land, Torts – Other

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.556795

Barnes v Phillips: CA 23 Oct 2015

Appeal against an order holding and declaring that the parties held the beneficial shares in their jointly owned property as tenants in common in shares of 85% in favour of the respondent Denise Rosamund Phillips and 15% in favour of Mr. Barnes.

Longmore, Lloyd-Jones LJJ, Hayden J
[2015] EWCA Civ 1056
Bailii
England and Wales

Trusts, Land

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.556784

P, Re: Admn 21 Oct 2008

Application for the appointment of a management receiver under section 77 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 in respect of certain property of Mr SMP, the defendant to these proceedings.

Mr C M G Ockelton,
(Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)
[2008] EWHC 3245 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Land, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.426051

The King v Earl Crawfurd: SCS 27 Jan 1530

Gif the superiour of ony landis callis and persewis his tenant, possessour of the samin, to heir and see the samin decernit to be in his handis, be ressoun of non-entres of the richteous air thairto, the samin landis, or ony part thairof, pertening to ony Lady or woman in conjunct-fie, on na wayis sould be decernit to be in non-entres during the time and space of the said conjunct fie.

[1530] Mor 3007
Bailii
Scotland

Land

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.556380

Behrens v Richards: 1905

Buckley J refused an injunction sought by the owner of land leading to the foreshore against fishermen who used the land to gain access to the foreshore, although he held that the fishermen had established no public right of way by long user. Buckley J said: ‘I cite again, as I did in Brinckman v Matley, Bowen LJ’s words in Blount v Layard [1891] 2 Ch 681n, 691n, ‘that nothing worse can happen in a free country than to force people to be churlish about their rights for fear that their indulgence may be abused, and to drive them to prevent the enjoyment of things which, although they are matters of private property, naturally give pleasure to many others besides the owners, under the fear that their good nature may be misunderstood,’ and ‘that, however continuous, however lengthy, the indulgence may have been, a jury ought to be warned against extracting out of it an inference unfavourable to the person who has granted the indulgence.’ In permitting persons to stray along the cliff edge or wander down the cliff face or stroll along the foreshore the owner of the land was permitting that which was no injury to him and whose refusal would have been a churlish and unreasonable act on his part. From such a user nothing, I think, is to be inferred.’

Buckley J
[1905] 2 Ch 614
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Newhaven Port and Properties Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v East Sussex County Council and Another SC 25-Feb-2015
The court was asked: ‘whether East Sussex County Council . . was wrong in law to decide to register an area . . known as West Beach at Newhaven . . as a village green pursuant to the provisions of the Commons Act 2006. The points of principle raised . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.562109

George, Viscount Garnock, Et Alii v Earl of Glasgow, Et Alii: HL 18 Apr 1740

The act of 1685, respecting the registration of entails, applies as well to entails made prior, as to those made subsequent to its date.
The fetters of an unregistered entail not having been inserted in the rights and infeftments of an heir, although referred to generally, are ineffectual against the creditors of the heir.

[1740] UKHL 1 – Paton – 281, (1740) 1 Paton 281
Bailii
England and Wales

Land

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554890

Hall v London Borough of Hillingdon: UTLC 17 Nov 2015

UTLC COMPENSATION – compulsory purchase – land acquired pursuant to a s.106 Agreement connected with major development of offices and park on reclaimed land – whether special value (if any) to developer to be left out of account under Pointe Gourde – estoppel – planning status – ransom value – hope value – disturbance – Land Compensation Act 1961 section 5, rules (2) and (6) – Compensation andpound;552,000

[2015] UKUT 606 (LC)
Bailii
Land Compensation Act 1961
England and Wales

Land

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554972

Walton and Another v Allman: ChD 18 Nov 2015

The claimant was subject to an order for payment of costs. She had asserted an equitable interest in her husband’s property when resisting an application for security for costs, but when a charging order was sought she now denied that interest. She now appealed against an order for its assessment.
Held: Appeal dismissed.

Snowden J
[2015] EWHC 3325 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales

Land

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554809

Sir William Gordon, Bart Alexander Gordon of Ardoch, Esq and Others, Tenants of Ardoch v Jane Mackenzie, Widow of John Urquhart of Newhall, Esq: HL 6 Feb 1736

Personal and real – Discharge – A widow being infeft for her jointure in certain lands, agreed with the son to accept a restricted sum out of other lands, which being afterwards sequestrated by his creditors, she brought an action against the purchaser and tenants of the first estate for her jointure and bygones;-the claim was sustained.
The purchaser having acquired right to a wadset of the lands, in consideration of which he had reserved a part of the price,-found that the wadset, though prior in date, did not stand in the way of the claim.

[1736] UKHL 1 – Paton – 176, (1736) 1 Paton 176
Bailii
Scotland

Land

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554678

Henry Trotter, of Morton Hall, Esq v Alexander, Earl of Marchmont; William, Earl of Home; Andrew Hogg of Harcarse, Esq; William Home and Roger Moodie;: HL 12 Feb 1736

Commonty. – Prescription – The proprietor of a moor (over which several heritors had rights of servitude,) possessed other lands, to which no servitude on the moor belonged, but the tenants of which were in use for above forty years, of pasturing cattle, andc. in common with the occupiers of the dominant lands. Found in a process of division of the moor, that the proprietor of the moor, (besides one fourth tanquam pr cipuum,) was entitled to a share in respect of these other lands.

[1736] UKHL 1 – Paton – 186, (1736) 1 Paton 186
Bailii
Scotland

Land

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554676