Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  















Land - From: 2001 To: 2001

This page lists 174 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Edwin Shirley Productions Ltd v Workspace Management Ltd [2001] 2 EGLR 16
2001


Contract, Land
So familiar is the use of the phrase "subject to contract" in the conveyancing context that its effect is, without proof, to be taken to be known to the parties.
1 Citers


 
Michael Batt Charitable Trust v Adams (2001) 82 P&CR 406; [2001] 2 EGLR 92
2001
ChD
Laddie J
Land, Limitation
The court looked at what was required to establish adverse possession in a claim for land. Laddie J said: "The only factor that appears, at first sight, to point in the direction to exclude anyone, is the fact that Mr Higgs maintained and repaired the fence separating the disputed land from Rushymead . . A fence is a barrier. It keeps things in and it keeps things out. No doubt it is reasonable to assume in many cases that a person who maintains a fence is doing so for both purposes, but that is not necessarily so. Having read all the evidence and the transcript of the cross-examination, there is nothing in this case that suggests that Mr Higgs was doing anything other than putting up a sufficient barrier to keep his livestock in. This also is not unequivocal evidence of an intention to exclude others."
1 Citers


 
Meftah v Lloyds TSB Bank [2001] 2 All ER (Comm) 741
2001
ChD
Lawrence J
Land, insolvency
Receivers of property under charge are not obliged before sale to spend money on repairs.
1 Citers


 
Bank of Ireland Home Mortgages Ltd v Bell [2001] 2 All ER (Comm) 920; [2001] 2 FLR 809
2001


Land


 
Meftah v Lloyd's TSB Bank Plc [2001] 2 All ER (Comm) 741
2001


Land, Equity
A short delay in the sale of a property by a mortgagee was appropriate to allow proper advertising of a property.
1 Citers



 
 Senbanjo v Brent London Borough Council; ChD 4-Jan-2001 - Times, 04 January 2001

 
 Bybrook Barn Garden Centre Ltd and Others v Kent County Council; CA 8-Jan-2001 - Times, 08 January 2001; Gazette, 05 April 2001; [2000] EWCA Civ 300; [2000] EWCA Civ 299; [2001] BLR 55
 
Sita v Surrey County Council [2001] EWLands ACQ_129_1999
8 Jan 2001
LT

Land
COMPENSATION - preliminary issue - limitation - reference made more than 6 years after entry - whether acquiring authority prevented by election or promissory estoppel from relying on limitation defence - held facts not establishing election or promissory estoppel
[ Bailii ]
 
Edmunds v National Assembly for Wales [2001] EWLands ACQ_59_1997
15 Jan 2001
LT

Land
LT COMPENSATION - compulsory purchase - rights of way - legal transfer - compensation awarded £28,670
[ Bailii ]
 
Kettering Borough Council v Anglian Water Services Plc [2001] EWLands LCA_121_2000
16 Jan 2001
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Bland v Ingrams Estates Ltd and Others (1) Times, 18 January 2001
18 Jan 2001
CA

Landlord and Tenant, Land, Equity
An equitable charge of a lease has standing to apply to court for relief from forfeiture for non-payment of rent, where the tenant did not himself seek relief, but only indirectly on the basis that the lessee and chargor has a duty to take reasonable steps to preserve the charge's security. The tenant stands in a similar position to a trustee unwilling to defend trust assets, and the chargee can act joining in the tenant as defendant and claim relief in the tenant's shoes.
Law of Property Act 1925 146(4)
1 Citers


 
Gold v Mincoff Science and Gold Gazette, 18 January 2001
18 Jan 2001
ChD
Neuberger J
Professional Negligence, Land, Limitation
A sleeping partner in a business executed several charges over partnership property, unaware that the funds raised were being used for purposes other than the partnership business. Their solicitors admitted negligence in not advising them sufficiently closely as to the effect of the all monies nature of the charges. A claim was brought to recover money, but then enlarged when the creditor appreciated the extent of the all monies charge. The claimant sought damages for negligence from the solicitor. Held: The limitation defence succeeded only in part. Where the solicitor had chosen to hide the effect of the clause from his client on signing later charges, liability arising under earlier charges continued.
Limitation Act 1980
1 Citers


 
Ravenocean Ltd v Garner Unreported, 19 January 2001
19 Jan 2001
ChD
Lloyd J
Land
The claimant asserted a constructive trust arising from an oral agreement by the defendant to sell his land to the plaintiff. It was conditional on the claimant obtaining planning permission. Pursuant to the agreement, and relying on it, the claimant paid out £3,000.00 in fees.The permission, was granted. The claimant sought a declaration that the land was held on constructive trust, and that it should be vested in him on just and equitable terms, including the payment by him of the alleged agreed purchase price of £40,000.00. There were extensive disputes of fact between the parties. The master had struck out a claim for specific performance the contract being void under s.2 of the 1989 Act, but did not strike out the claimant's alternative claim to a constructive trust. The defendant appealed. Held: Lloyd J assumed the facts alleged by the claimant. The appeal was allowed. He struck out the claim for a constructive trust. There could be no serious argument for more than a restitutionary claim for the expenditure. It would not be inequitable to limit the claimant to a restitutionary claim: "To the contrary it seems to me that to apply the analogy of Yaxley v Gotts to the present case where the contract is wholly executory, viewing it in terms of a contract if it had been one, in which nothing has been done other than the incurring of a relatively small expenditure by way of the obtaining of planning permission, to go from that to say that this gives the claimant an equity which can only properly be satisfied by treating it as being in the position of a purchaser under a true contract entitled to an order for the transfer of the property on condition that it paid the price, would indeed drive a coach and horses through section 2, and would be a wholly illegitimate extension to facts which do not in any way justify it, of the doctrine of constructive trust and the decision in Yaxley –v- Gotts."
Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 2
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Taylor and Another v Lawrence and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 119
25 Jan 2001
CA
Peter Gibson, Chadwick, Keene LJJ
Land
Boundary dispute appeal - whether court has apparent bias. The court must ask "whether those circumstances would lead a fair-minded and informed observer to conclude that there was a real possibility . . that the tribunal was biased."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
London Borough of Lambeth v Rumbelow Unreported 25 Jan 2001
25 Jan 2001
ChD
Etherton J
Land, Limitation
The court considered what would constitute permission to occupy land so as to destroy a claim for adverse possession. Etherton J said: "In order to establish permission in the circumstances of any case two matters must be established. Firstly, there must have been some overt act by the land owner or some demonstrable circumstances from which the inference can be drawn that permission was in fact given. It is, however, irrelevant whether the users were aware of those matters. …Secondly [it must be established that] a reasonable person would have appreciated that the user was with the permission of the land owner."
1 Citers


 
Buhr v Barclays Bank plc Gazette, 09 August 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1223; [2002] 1 P & CR DG7; [2002] BPIR 25; [2001] 31 EGCS 103; [2001] NPC 124
26 Jan 2001
CA
Woolf LCJ, Tuckey, Arden LJJ
Land, Trusts, Insolvency
The bank took a second charge over property, but failed to get it registered. The chargors fell into debt and bankruptcy, and the property was sold. The proceeds were used to discharge the first charge, and then repay unsecured creditors. The bank claimed the money had been received on constructive trust. Held: The court confirmed that the failure to register the charge only voided it as against the purchaser. When the bank's security was destroyed, a security interest was created automatically in the asset which replaced it. The sale by the husband and wife was not authorised by the bank, and the judge had concluded correctly.
Arden LJ stated: "if . . the mortgagor makes a disposition of the mortgaged property in a manner which destroys the mortgagee(s estate in the mortgaged property, a security interest in the property which represents the mortgaged property automatically and as a matter of law comes into existence as from the moment that the mortgagor becomes entitled to their property."
Law of Property Act 1925 63
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
David MacDonald v Geoffrey Myerson and Others Gazette, 08 February 2001
26 Jan 2001
CA

Legal Aid, Land
The client obtained mortgages for properties through a fraud as to his identity. He was convicted of fraud, but in the meantime sold one property through the defendant solicitors. The mortgage was redeemed, but the defendant refused to pay the balance proceeds of sale to the claimant, on the basis that his claim was based upon an illegal contract. He asserted that he was simply entitled. The claimant succeeded, since it was admitted that in fact he was the person who had purchased and sold the property. It was for parliament if it wished to create any way of enhancing civil confiscation procedures.


 
 Snell v Beadle (nee Silcock); PC 29-Jan-2001 - [2001] UKPC 5; Appeal No 19 of 2000
 
Trustees of the Calthorpe Estate, Re [2001] EWLands LRA_44_2000
5 Feb 2001
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd and Another v Graham and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 117
6 Feb 2001
CA

Land, Limitation
Leave to appeal to the House of Lords refused.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd and Another v Caroline Graham and Another; CA 6-Feb-2001 - Gazette, 22 February 2001; Times, 13 February 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 117; [2001] Ch 804; [2001] 2 WLR 1293; (2001) 82 P & CR DG1; [2001] 18 EG 176; [2001] 2 EGLR 69; (2001) 82 P & CR 23; [2001] HRLR 27; [2001] 7 EGCS 161; [2001] NPC 29
 
Raja v Lloyds Bank Plc Gazette, 08 February 2001
8 Feb 2001
CA

Land, Limitation, Professional Negligence
The claimant's properties had been sold after repossession by a lender. He claimed damages for the negligent sales at an undervalue. He began the action after six years after the properties were sold, and asserted that the action was based upon the mortgages and that therefore the limitation period was twelve not six years. Assertions that the relationship of mortgagor and mortgagee could give rise to an equitable duty of care were inconsistent with modern authority, and nor could a duty be dependent upon an implied contractual term. The limitation period is six years, and the claim was out of time.


 
 Regina (on the application of Gilbert) v Plymouth City Airport Limited; W W Thomas v Secretary of State for Transport, Environment and Regions; CA 8-Feb-2001 - Gazette, 22 February 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 144
 
Ryde International Plc v London Regional Transport [2001] EWLands ACQ_147_2000
12 Feb 2001
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Mills and Allen Ltd v Commission for New Towns [2001] EWLands LCA_144_2000
20 Feb 2001
LT

Land
LT COMPENSATION - preliminary issue - disturbance payment - Land Compensation Act 1973 s 37 - advertisement site - claimant's right to occupy terminating on disposal of land - land acquired by urban development corporation - hoardings removed by corporation - whether claimant displaced in consequence of acquisition - whether corporation an authority possessing compulsory purchase powers - held claimant entitled to compensation
Land Compensation Act 1973 37
[ Bailii ]

 
 Trevelyan (On Behalf Of Himself and The Ramblers Association) v The Secretary of State for The Environment, Transport and The Regions; CA 23-Feb-2001 - Times, 15 March 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 266; [2001] 2 PLR 45; [2001] 1 WLR 1264; [2001] NPC 41; [2001] 3 All ER 166
 
Dear v Reeves Times, 22 March 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 277
1 Mar 2001
CA

Land, Insolvency
A right of pre-emption granted over land was property. It had value and was capable of assignment, and was therefore a chose in action. As such it was vested the trustee in bankruptcy on the insolvency of the owner of the right. It may be difficult to value, and might not become exercisable, but it remained property.
Insolvency Act 1986 436
[ Bailii ]
 
Halil v London Borough of Lambeth [2001] EWLands ACQ_105_1999
2 Mar 2001
LT

Land
LT COMPENSATION - compulsory acquisition of leasehold shop and premises - total extinguishment of business - disturbance - analysis of accounts - treatment of wife's earnings - depreciation of capital assets - multiplier - Land Compensation Act 1961 s1 - Award: £73,176.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Battersea Freehold and Leasehold Property Company Ltd v Wandsworth London Borough Council Gazette, 17 May 2001
2 Mar 2001
ChD
Rimer J
Land, Limitation
The tenant of the applicant had occupied land adjacent to the tenanted land and belonging to the council respondent for more than 12 years. The applicant sought to assert that he had acquired possessory title. The tenant had however shared the keys when requested. Held: The claimants appeal failed. Even if the tenant's use of the land had not been permissive, in order to establish adverse possession the claimant had to show that its tenant had intended to exclude the whole world at large from the disputed land; The sharing of the keys by the tenant indicated that he had not viewed himself as asserting exclusive possession, by excluding the world at large.

 
Shah v Shah and others [2001] EWCA Civ 493
7 Mar 2001
CA

Contract, Estoppel, Land
Renewed application for permission to appeal - whether deed validly signed.
Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Strickson v Boyd; CA 15-Mar-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 401

 
 Nationwide Building Society v James Beauchamp (A firm); CA 15-Mar-2001 - Gazette, 15 March 2001

 
 British Waterways Board v Severn Trent Water Ltd; CA 23-Mar-2001 - Times, 23 March 2001; Gazette, 29 March 2001; Gazette, 20 April 2001; [2001] 3 WLR 613; [2002] Ch 25; [2001] EWCA Civ 276; [2002] EHLR 1; [2001] 3 All ER 673; [2001] Env LR 45; [2001] NPC 53
 
Environment Agency (Thames Region) v John Bushnell Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 517
28 Mar 2001
CA
Simon Brown LJ VP CA, Mance LJ
Transport, Land
Appeal from a judgment against the defendants/appellants for £3,842.36 plus interest and costs. It raises some interesting points under the Thames Conservancy Act 1932 and under express or implied licence arrangements (known as "accommodation licences") made between the parties.
Thames Conservancy Act 1932
[ Bailii ]
 
Hickling v Persons Unknown [2001] EWCA Civ 494
30 Mar 2001
CA

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Marcello Developments Ltd, Re [2001] EWLands LP_18_1999
30 Mar 2001
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Re Marcello Developments Ltd [2001] EWLands LP_31_2000
30 Mar 2001
LT

Land
LT RESTRICTIVE COVENANT - restrictions in 7 conveyances including restrictions of frontage, building line and use - site developed with flats in breach of restriction - discharge and modification sought to enable redevelopment with flats and houses - effect of High Court declaration on enforceability - grounds (a), (aa), (b) and (c) - discharge and modification - sums of pounds 2,500 to be paid to owners of each of 8 houses with benefit of restrictions
[ Bailii ]
 
Tenants of Langford Court v Doren Ltd [2001] EWLands LRX_37_2000
31 Mar 2001
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]

 
 Davies and others v Forestry Commission; CA 3-Apr-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 507
 
Rodway v Landy Times, 18 April 2001; Gazette, 01 June 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 471
4 Apr 2001
CA

Trusts, Land
Two doctors in partnership held and occupied premises under a trust of land. After the break up of the partnership and practice into two, they sought to decide what was to happen to the premises. Rules would prevent the sale of the property. The building leant itself to a division under which one party could practice from one part, and the other from the other. The judge ordered accordingly, with additional conditions. On appeal the court confirmed the order. The Act allowed the trustees to restrict occupation of some parts of the land subject to the trust, by one or more beneficiaries. The court could also order the beneficiaries to contribute to the costs of the adaptation.
Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 13(1) 14
[ Bailii ]
 
Moncrieff v Brugge and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 555
5 Apr 2001
CA
Hale LJ
Land
Application for leave to appeal in boundary dispute.
[ Bailii ]
 
Petition of Alan Macintyre for Judicial Review of a Decision of the Crofters Commission [2001] ScotCS 85
5 Apr 2001
SCS

Scotland, Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Dyer v Rt Hon Charles Gerald John Earl of Cadogan [2001] EWLands LRA_4_2000
6 Apr 2001
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Dyer v Rt Hon Charles Gerald John Earl of Cadogan [2001] EWLands LRA_2_2000
6 Apr 2001
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Robinson Webster (Holdings) Ltd v Agombar [2002] 1 P & CR 20; [2001] EWHC 510 (Ch)
9 Apr 2001
ChD
Etherton J
Land
Declaration as to public rights of way
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Purfleet Farms Ltd v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] EWLands ACQ_108_2000
10 Apr 2001
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Maryland Estates Ltd v Campana Court Ltd [2001] EWLands LRA_21_2000
10 Apr 2001
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
London Borough of Lambeth v Blackburn [2001] EWCA Civ 668
10 Apr 2001
CA

Land, Limitation
Renewed application for leave to appeal - granted.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Shah v Shah Times, 15 May 2001; [2002] QB 35; [2001] EWCA Civ 527; [2001] 3 WLR 31; [2001] 4 All ER 138
10 Apr 2001
CA
Pill LJ, Tuckey LJ and Sir Christopher Slade
Land, Estoppel
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 presence of a witness. In the event, although the "witness" signed shortly after the defendants, he did so without having been present when they signed. When, therefore, the claimant brought proceedings against them, the defendants disputed the claim on the basis that the "deed" had not been validly executed. Held: The defendants were estopped from denying that they had signed the document in the witness's presence. Public policy could not be used to disallow a party from asserting that a deed was valid despite the fact that the signature had not been properly witnessed, even though it was in the nature of the deed that such witnessing was required by law. Here the witness signature had not been present when he added his signature. The circumstances which might give rise to such a claim would often be solely with the party seeking to avoid liability under a deed, and being permitted to deny his deed would lead to uncertainty and fraud. The party had presented it as his own and properly attested deed and could be estopped from denying it.
Pill LJ said: "I bear in mind the clarity of the language of section 1(2) and (3) and also that the requirement for attestation is integral to the requirement for signature in that the validity of the signature is stipulated to depend on the presence of the attesting witness. I also accept that attestation has a purpose in that it limits the scope for disputes as to whether the document was signed and the circumstances in which it was signed. The beneficial effect of the requirement for attestation of the signature in the manner specified in the statute is not in question. It gives some, but not complete, protection to other parties to the deed who can have more confidence in the genuineness of the signature by reason of the attestation. It gives some, but not complete, protection to a potential signatory who may be under a disability, either permanent or temporary. A person may aver in opposition to his own deed that he was induced to execute it by fraud, misrepresentation or, as was unsuccessfully alleged in the present case, duress and the attestation requirement is a safeguard.
I have, however, come to the conclusion that there was no statutory intention to exclude the operation of an estoppel in all circumstances or in circumstances such as the present. The perceived need for formality in the case of a deed requires a signature and a document cannot be a deed in the absence of a signature. I can detect no social policy which requires the person attesting the signature to be present when the document is signed. The attestation is at one stage removed from the imperative out of which the need for formality arises. It is not fundamental to the public interest, which is in the requirement for a signature. Failure to comply with the additional formality of attestation should not in itself prevent a party into whose possession an apparently valid deed has come from alleging that the signatory should not be permitted to rely on the absence of attestation in his presence. It should not permit a person to escape the consequences of an apparently valid deed he has signed, representing that he has done so in the presence of an attesting witness, merely by claiming that in fact the attesting witness was not present at the time of signature. The fact that the requirements are partly for the protection of the signatory makes it less likely that Parliament intended that the need for them could in all circumstances be used to defeat the claim of another party.
Having regard to the purposes for which deeds are used and indeed in some cases required, and the long-term obligations which deeds will often create, there are policy reasons for not permitting a party to escape his obligations under the deed by reason of a defect, however minor, in the way his signature was attested. The possible adverse consequences if a signatory could, months or years later, disclaim liability upon a purported deed, which he had signed and delivered, on the mere ground that his signature had not been attested in his presence, are obvious. The lack of proper attestation will be peculiarly within the knowledge of the signatory and, as Sir Christopher Slade observed in the course of argument, will often not be within the knowledge of the other parties.
In this case the document was described as a deed and was signed. A witness, to whom the third and fourth defendants were well known, provided a form of attestation shortly afterwards and the only failure was that he did so without being in the presence of the third and fourth defendants when they signed."
Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 1
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Grossman v Hooper [2001] EWCA Civ 615; [2001] 2 EGLR 82; [2001] 3 FCR 662; [2001] 27 EG 135
11 Apr 2001
CA
Chadwick LJ, Sir Christopher Staughton doubted the observation in
Contract, Land
The parties had lived together in the house, each contributing but held in the name of one only. The parties disputed the effect under the 1989 Act of a letter signed by each of them setting out their agreement as to the basis on which it was held. He argued that it did not include a relevant term, and was therefore not effective. Held: The appeal failed. The court should be wary of artificially dividing up what is in truth a composite transaction. Sir Christopher Staughton doubted the observation in Tootal saying: "I am by no means sure of that. If the parties are allowed by a simple device to avoid the effects of section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, what was the point of Parliament enacting it?"
Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 2(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Minster Chalets Ltd v Irwin Park Residents Association [2001] EWLands LRX_28_2000
22 Apr 2001
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Paragon Finance Plc v Noueiri [2001] EWCA Civ 603; [2001] 1 WLR 2357
24 Apr 2001
CA
Keene LJ
Land, Litigation Practice
Application for leave to appeal.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Putney Club v Thorneley (Vo) [2001] EWLands RA_86_1998
26 Apr 2001
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions and Another Gazette, 03 May 2001
3 May 2001
QBD

Planning, Land, Human Rights
Two supermarkets sought permission to develop neighbouring sites. The council preferred one, and set put to make compulsory purchase orders from the other to allow it to proceed. The second was later granted permission, and objected to the CPO. It was not necessary to give greater respect to the need to avoid Compulsory Purchase, and the need to support the preferred scheme was a compelling case in the public interest, so as to justify the making of the compulsory purchase order, which was confirmed. The test had not been significantly tightened by the Act.
Human Rights Act 1998

 
Cornwall Gardens Pte Ltd v R O Garrard and Co Ltd and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 699
9 May 2001
CA

Land
Disputed right of way
[ Bailii ]
 
Barrington Court Developments Ltd v Barrington Court Residents Association [2001] EWLands LRX_65_2000
9 May 2001
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
In re Farrow [2001] EWLands LP_18_2000
10 May 2001
LT

Land
LT RESTRICTIVE COVENANT - restriction to single storey dwelling - application to remove this limitation - proposed house - applicant the original covenantor - effect of possible refusal of planning permission for bungalow - changes in neighbourhood and property - benefits secured to objector - public interest - whether agreement to modify - injury to objector - application refused - applicant's application to adjourn refused - Law of Property Act 1925, s.84(1)(a)(aa)(b)(c)(1A)(1B).
[ Bailii ]
 
Marcic v Thames Water Utilities Ltd [2001] EWHC Technology 421
14 May 2001
TCC

Nuisance, Land, Human Rights

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Bettison and others v Langton and others; HL 17-May-2001 - Times, 30 May 2001; Gazette, 21 June 2001; [2001] UKHL 24; [2001] 3 All ER 417; [2001] 2 WLR 1605

 
 Wallbank and Wallbank v Parochial Church Council of Aston Cantlow and Wilmcote With Billesley, Warwickshire; CA 17-May-2001 - Gazette, 01 June 2001; Times, 15 June 2001; Gazette, 21 June 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 713; [2002] Ch 51
 
Morris v Wrexham County Borough Council and Another [2001] EWHC 697 (Admin)
18 May 2001
Admn
Jackson J
Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Fernlee Estates Limited v City and County of Swansea, Same v National Assembly for Wales Gazette, 01 June 2001; [2001] EWHC Admin 360
18 May 2001
Admn

Land
The council had added a bridleway to the definitive map of rights of way on the basis that the use had been for more than 20 years by the public with no evidence of intention not to dedicate it as a public highway. The period was calculated back from the time when it was challenged. The land-owners objected on the basis that there had been some interruption by building works. The interruption was held to be insufficient. There had been no physical interruption, as opposed to acts which challenged the right but did not prevent it. A mere absence of use de facto would not interfere with the enjoyment of the right.
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 53(3)(b) - Highways Act 1980 31
[ Bailii ]
 
Stein and Another v Trustees of Eyre Estate [2001] EWLands LRA_11_2000
18 May 2001
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Samy Sunnassee v David Ardill [2001] UKPC 25; Appeal No 50 of 1999
21 May 2001
PC

Land, Contract, Commonwealth
(Mauritius) The appeal concerned an option to purchase land. The parties differed as to the identity of the land covered, and as to the service of the notice exercising the option. Certain factual elements had not been resolved in the lower courts, and while reasserting their reluctance to investigate matters of fact, the court agreed to look at some factual issues. After many years the claimant was unable to produce evidence of the service of a particular notice, only a copy of the letter sent. An apparent mistake by the parties in referring to a plan which did not accord with the expectations of either of them would not vitiate the contractual option. Each party thought the plan referred to was in a certain form.
[ Bailii ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ]
 
Goomti Ramnarace v Harrypersad Lutchman [2001] UKPC 24; No 8 of 2000
21 May 2001
PC
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Millett, Lord Scott of Foscote
Land, Limitation, Commonwealth
(Trinidad and Tobago) The defendant had gone into possession of land by consent, and many years later declined to leave. The claimant said the period of her adverse possession was insufficient but she claimed a tenancy. The claimant asserted that she had gone into possession as a licensee, and that the limitation period could not commence until her licence was terminated. Adverse possession is possession inconsistent with and in denial of the title of the true owner. A person cannot be a tenant at will where it appears that there was no intention to create legal relations, and she must be taken to have entered into possession of the disputed land in July 1974 as an intending purchaser and as a tenant at will. That tenancy expired after one year, when the limitation period commenced. Her claim succeeded.
Real Property Limitation Ordinance 1940
1 Cites

[ Bailii ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ]
 
Patel and Another v Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council [2001] EWLands ACQ_103_1999
21 May 2001
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
St Mary's Mansions Ltd v J Iannaccone and others [2001] EWLands LRX_11_1002
22 May 2001
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]

 
 Rees and Other v Skerrett; CA 23-May-2001 - Times, 18 June 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 760; [2001] 3 EGLR 1
 
Lumb v United Utilities Water Ltd [2001] EWLands LCA_44_1997
7 Jun 2001
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Hart v Maddison [2001] EWCA Civ 872
8 Jun 2001
CA

Trusts, Land

Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 15
[ Bailii ]
 
Richard Jonathan Brett Guise v John Drew [2001] EWHC Ch 410
8 Jun 2001
ChD
His Honour Judge Bowsher Q.C.
Land, Limitation
A right of way had been acquired by prescription, but its extent was disputed. It had been used for mainly residential purposes, but then to a greater extent for a different business use. Held: A right of way may be for one purpose, to the exclusion of others. It is a question of fact whether a right of way is for a limited purpose or purposes, or is a general right for all purposes. A right of way for a defunct family business cannot be enlarged into a right of way for business generally.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Lomax and Another v Wood Gazette, 21 June 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1099
11 Jun 2001
CA
Schemann LJ, Mummery Lj, Sir Mrray Stuart-Smith
Land
Land owners were granted a right of way over an occupation road to the highway. They had other means of access to the highway, but eventually sought to construct a gateway onto the occupation road. The owners of the occupation road resisted. It was held that the express grant of the right of way must envisage some form of access being allowed. It might not included a right to create several points of access, but one gateway was inevitable.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
N Allee and Co v Hodson [2001] EWCA Civ 951
14 Jun 2001
CA

Land, Registered Land
Boundary dispute.
[ Bailii ]
 
London Borough of Lambeth v Blackburn Gazette, 21 June 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 912; (2001) 82 P & CR 494
14 Jun 2001
CA
Lord Justice Clarke, Lord Justice Judge, Lord Justice Laws
Land, Limitation
The appellant had broken into an empty council owned flat, and subsequently occupied it. After twelve years the authority obtained a court order for possession. The court had held that the appellant had not had a sufficient animus possidendi since he had not at any time expected to live there for as more than a temporary expedient. He succeeded on appeal. The tenant had removed a padlock and provided his own Yale lock. Any inspection would have revealed an intention to assert ownership against the world. That he would have negotiated with the council if they had contacted him was not enough to defeat the claim. There was nothing in the appellants evidence to contradict the assertion of possession.
Clarke LJ said: "It is not perhaps immediately obvious why the authorities have required a trespasser to establish an intention to possess as well as actual possession in order to prove the relevant adverse possession. It seems to me that the answer lies in the fact that the possession must be adverse, that is adverse to the interest of the paper owner. It can only be adverse if the possession is apparent to the owner; that is, if it is manifest to the owner that the trespasser intends to maintain possession against the whole world including the owner. That does not mean that it must in fact be known to the owner, but that it must be manifested to him so that, if he were present at the property he would be aware that the trespasser had taken possession of it and had intended to keep others out." and
"It is thus of crucial importance that the trespasser's acts must be unequivocal. They must make it clear to the owner, if present at the land, that he intended to exclude the owner, as Slade J put it 'as best he can'" and "I would not for part think it appropriate to strain to hold that a trespasser who had established factual possession of the property for the necessary 12 years did not have the animus possidendi identified in the cases. I express that view for two reasons. The first is that the requirement that there be a sufficient manifestation of the intention provides protection for landowners and the second is that once it is held that the trespasser has factual possession it will very often be the case that he can establish the manifested intention."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council and Cheshire County Council; CA 18-Jun-2001 - Times, 22 March 2002; [2001] EWCA Civ 911
 
Heathrow Airport Ltd v Stacey [2001] EWCA Civ 1130
20 Jun 2001
CA
Kay LJ
Land

[ Bailii ]
 
National Westminster Bank Plc v Brunt [2001] EWCA Civ 1063
21 Jun 2001
CA

Land
Mortgage possession proceedings.
[ Bailii ]
 
London and Regional Investments Ltd v TBI Plc and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 1026
22 Jun 2001
CA

Land, Contract

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Richards and Another v Somerset County Council [2001] EWLands ACQ_23_1999
22 Jun 2001
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
O'Rourke v United Kingdom 39022/97; [2001] ECHR 889
26 Jun 2001
ECHR

Human Rights, Land
The applicant was a sex offender who on release from prison had found temporary accommodation from which he had been evicted for pestering female residents. He ignored advice to go to a night shelter whilst a decision on permanent re-housing was taken. He turned down other apparently reasonably offers of permanent accommodation. Having finally been offered and accepted a council tenancy he sued the local authority for damages. He claimed the hotel room as his home though he had occupied it less than a month at the discretion of the proprietors before being evicted. The Court had "significant doubts over whether or not the applicant's links with the hotel room were sufficient and continuous enough to make it his 'home' at the time of his eviction". The Court insisted on an individual's need to show sufficient and continuing links with a place in order to establish that it is his home for purposes of article 8.
European Convention on Human Rights 8
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Farrell v First National Bank Plc; CA 26-Jun-2001 - Gazette, 05 July 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1107
 
Campbell v Griffin and others [2001] EWCA Civ 990; [2001] NPC 102; (2001) 82 P & CR DG23; [2001] WTLR 981
27 Jun 2001
CA
The President, Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice Robert Walker
Estoppel, Land

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Natal v Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council [2001] EWLands ACQ_240_2000
28 Jun 2001
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]

 
 Applegarth v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and Regions; Admn 28-Jun-2001 - [2001] EWHC Admin 487

 
 Jones v Morgan; CA 28-Jun-2001 - Times, 24 July 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 995; (2001) 82 P and CR DG20; [2001] NPC 104; [2001] Lloyds Rep Bank 323; [2002] 1 EGLR 125
 
Paragon Finance Plc v Noueiri [2001] EWCA Civ 1114; [2002] CP Rep 2
4 Jul 2001
CA

Land

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Evis and Another v Commission for New Towns [2001] EWLands ACQ_125_2000
5 Jul 2001
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Rees Investments Ltd v Groves and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 1285
5 Jul 2001
CA
Robert Walker, Rix LJJ
Land
Application for leave to appeal against mortgage re-possession order.
[ Bailii ]
 
Andrews and Another v Russell (Vo) [2001] EWLands RA_76_1999
9 Jul 2001
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Marcic v Thames Water Utilities Ltd [2001] EWHC Technology 394; [2002] QB 929; [2001] 4 All ER 326
10 Jul 2001
TCC
His Honour Judge Richard Havery QC
Land, Human Rights, Negligence, Nuisance, Utilities

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Burrell v Norris [2001] EWCA Civ 1180
10 Jul 2001
CA

Land, Trusts

[ Bailii ]
 
Tribelnig v Goymour and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 1104
10 Jul 2001
CA

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Omar v El-Wakil Gazette, 26 July 2001; Times, 02 November 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1090; [2002] 2 P & CR 36; [2001] NPC 114
11 Jul 2001
CA
Phillips MR, Pill LJ, Arden LJ
Land, Contract
The parties entered into two linked contracts providing for a property and a business to be transferred, a lease granted and otherwise. The transfer of the property was in the sum expressed in the sum and at the time the other agreement provided for the deposit. After that transfer the claimant issued a notice to complete, and then sought payment of the deposit. The respondent who had already transferred the property claimed that this stood for the deposit, and requested its return. Held: His appeal was refused. Although the court should have treated the two contracts as one, and the house as the deposit on the second contract, a deposit should not normally be returnable. Neither party was in a position to complete the second contract and the notice to complete was inappropriate.
Arden LJ discussed the interpretation of section 49(2): "The starting point must be that although section 49(2) is expressed in open-textured terms leaving it to the courts to determine the organising principles, the court must bear in mind that the payment in question was a 'deposit', that is an earnest for performance and that accordingly there should not be relief simply because the Corringham contract never took place . . The context here is of a conveyancing transaction. It is common knowledge that if a purchaser pays a deposit he is likely to forfeit it if he does not fulfil the contract. Moreover deposits are very usual features of conveyancing transactions and conveyancing transactions are common. It is important that there should be certainty attaching to the consequences of paying a deposit.
As the judge did not exercise his discretion under section 49(2), or alternatively declined to exercise it on the basis no deposit had been paid, it is open to this court to do so. For the reasons given, I would start from the position that the deposit should not normally be ordered to be repaid. Are there any mitigating circumstances in the present case? . . Furthermore in my judgment, in a situation where a purchaser could not himself perform, the circumstances which make it appropriate for the court to exercise its discretion under section 49(2) in his favour must be exceptional. Inability to complete is exactly the risk the deposit was intended to guard against. Accordingly I would not exercise the discretion conferred by section 49(2) in Mr Omar's favour and would dismiss the appeal on that point."
Law of Property Act 1925 49(2)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Carson v Manweb Plc and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 1286
11 Jul 2001
CA
Mummery, Wilson LJJ
Land, Police

[ Bailii ]
 
Batchelor v Marlow and Another Gazette, 12 July 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1051; [2003] 1 WLR 764
12 Jul 2001
CA
Henry LJ, Tuckey LJ, Kay LJ
Land, Limitation
The applicant claimed parking rights as an easement acquired by prescription. At first instance the rights were recognised as an easement. The rights included parking during daylight hours during weekdays. The land-owner appealed on the ground that the extent of use claimed destroyed the owner's ability to use the land, to the point where his ownership was illusory. The court agreed, and declared that there was no easement if it extended to that point.
Tuckey LJ asked: "Does an exclusive right to park six cars for 9.5 hours every day of the working week leave the plaintiff without any reasonable use of his land, whether for parking or anything else?" and he gave the answer: "[The plaintiff's] right to use his land is curtailed altogether for intermittent periods throughout the week. Such a restriction would, I think, make his ownership of the land illusory."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Paragon Finance plc v City of London Real Property Co Ltd; ChD 16-Jul-2001 - Times, 20 August 2001; Gazette, 13 September 2001; [2001] EWHC Ch 483
 
Heywood v Hey [2001] EWCA Civ 1333
18 Jul 2001
CA
Thorpe LJ
Land
An order for the sale of the former family home had been made, and the sale completed, the transfer being executed by the judge. The mother now applied for leave to appeal. Held: There was no important point of law or practice, nor any other compelling reason to grant permission and that application is refused.
[ Bailii ]
 
Savory and others v Morrison (T/A Park Home Estates) [2001] EWCA Civ 1225
23 Jul 2001
CA

Contract, Land
Members of a residential association on a mobile homes park complained that the owner had failed to comply with an obligation to ensure that other residents did not breach the rules of the park, and in particular that he had allowed six mobile home owners to keep dogs.
[ Bailii ]
 
Ipswich Borough Council v Moore and Another Times, 25 October 2001; [2001] EWCA (Civ) 1273
25 Jul 2001
CA
Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Lord Justice Chadwick and Lord Justice Kay
Local Government, Land, Transport
A statute in 1950 granted to the port authority powers, inter alia, to grant licences for moorings on the foreshore. These powers overrode the ancient Royal Charter which vested the foreshore in the local authority. Accordingly licences issued by the port authority were effective and binding as against the local authority.
Ipswich Docks Act 1950 12 - Charter of Henry VIII of 1518/19
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Ipswich Borough Council v Moore and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 1273
25 Jul 2001
CA
Peter Gibson, Chadwick, Kay LJJ
Land, Transport
The court considered whether the Council, as owner of the foreshore was able to control licensing for the deep water moorings adjacent.
Ipswich Dock Act 1950
[ Bailii ]
 
Paige v Webb [2001] EWCA Civ 1220
26 Jul 2001
CA
Lord Justice Laws, Lord Justice Mummery, Sir Anthony Evans
Land, Contract, Litigation Practice, Registered Land
The claimant sought rescission of a consent order for specific performance made in an earlier action. The purchasers had not complied simply with the order, but had sought to bring back certain parts of the original contract. Held: Once an order for specific performance has been made, the matter of how the contract is to be performed lies with the court, not the parties. The consent order itself referred back to the contract, and the remaining conditions still applied. The consent order should not be rescinded on these grounds. The seller had refused to complete without delivering a deed of rectification, nevertheless that would not in the circumstances pose any practical problem.
Land Registration Act 1925 110(2)
1 Cites



 
 Regina (on the application of Beresford) v The City of Sunderland; CA 26-Jul-2001 - Times, 29 August 2001; Gazette, 13 September 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1218; [2002] QB 874
 
Azfar, Re [2001] EWLands LP_10_2000
30 Jul 2001
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Wandsworth London Borough Council v Railtrack plc Times, 02 August 2001; Gazette, 27 September 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1236
30 Jul 2001
CA
Kennedy LJ, Chadwick LJ, Rougier J
Nuisance, Land
Where the defendant land-owner was aware of a nuisance on his land, and had both the reasonable opportunity, and the means to abate it, he had a duty to abate the nuisance. It did not matter that the nuisance may have its creation in the acts of others. Here a railway bridge came to house many pigeons, encouraged, perhaps, by some local residents. The Local Authority sought to recover and was granted, the cost of controlling the mess created by the pigeons. They constituted a nuisance, and the cost of resolving the nuisance fell on the respondent land owner.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Mahmood and Shamllakh Application for Judicial Review [2001] EWCA Civ 1245
31 Jul 2001
CA
Lord Justice Chadwick, Lord Justice Kennedy, Lord Justice Rix
Land, Human Rights

[ Bailii ]
 
Nybakken-Stern v Cooch and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 1355
31 Jul 2001
CA

Land
Application for permission to appeal
[ Bailii ]
 
Abbey National Plc v Lidwine Diane Desorties [2001] EWCA Civ 1361
31 Jul 2001
CA
Aldous LJ
Land
Permission to appeal against possession order.
[ Bailii ]

 
 Kind v Newcastle-Upon-Tyne Council; Admn 31-Jul-2001 - Gazette, 23 August 2001; [2001] EWHC Admin 616

 
 Hussain v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council; LT 9-Aug-2001 - [2001] EWLands ACQ_133_2000
 
Rank Leisure and others v Castle Vale Housing Action Trust [2001] EWLands ACQ_168_1999
13 Aug 2001
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Khalique v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council [2001] EWLands ACQ_161_2000
15 Aug 2001
LT

Land
LT COMPENSATION - compulsory acquisition of derelict property in Bradford - comparables Council's valuer's comparables rejected in favour of settlement on adjoining property - compensation determined at £16,000
[ Bailii ]
 
Rehman and others v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council [2001] EWLands ACQ_165_2000
15 Aug 2001
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Rehman and others v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council [2001] EWLands ACQ_164_2000
15 Aug 2001
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Rehman and others v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council [2001] EWLands ACQ_162_2000
15 Aug 2001
LT

Land
LT COMPENSATION - compulsory acquisition of derelict properties in Bradford - ownership - rights of way - comparables - inadmissibility of Tribunal's decision on value of adjoining property - claimants' valuer's figures accepted
[ Bailii ]
 
Rehman and others v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council [2001] EWLands ACQ_163_2000
15 Aug 2001
LT

Land
LT COMPENSATION - compulsory acquisition of derelict properties in Bradford - ownership - rights of way - comparables - inadmissibility of Tribunal's decision on value of adjoining property - claimants' valuer's figures accepted
[ Bailii ]
 
Leakey, Regina (on the Application of) v North Yorkshire County Council [2001] EWCA Civ 1409
29 Aug 2001
CA

Local Government, Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Davies and others v Hyder Plc [2001] EWLands LCA_41_2001
29 Aug 2001
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
South Lanarkshire Council v The Lord Advocate As Representing the Scottish Ministers and others [2001] ScotHC 95; [2001] ScotCS 213
30 Aug 2001
IHCS
Lord President, Lord Prosser, Lady Cosgrove
Scotland, Planning, Land
Following a planning permission the applicant's land became subject to compulsory purchase, and they were entitled to a certificate of appropriate alternative development. An application was made, but much later, and then granted on appeal. The respondents appealed against the certificate as regards one use. Held: The grant may have been more favourable to the applicant than might have been the case if the decision had been made properly, but it was too late to resile on the decision.
Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963 (c. 51) 29
1 Cites

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
 
Henriques v Stephens (Vo) [2001] EWLands RA_45_2000
31 Aug 2001
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
BRB (Residuary) Ltd v South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive [2001] EWLands ACQ_32_1997
31 Aug 2001
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Hampden Park Limited v Frank Dow and Stephen Conley and Hampden Cars Limited and Mount Florida Cars Limited [2001] ScotHC 99; [2001] ScotCS 216
3 Sep 2001
ScHC
Lord Drummond Young
Scotland, Land
The case related to the disputed status of rights of way to the national football stadium in Scotland, over land adjoining the stadium. The stadium owners claimed that rights of way over the land had been used for more than twenty years. The land owners had purported to block the way by parking a car across it, and placing bollards to prevent access, and the stadium sought an interdict. Interdict is a preventive or prohibitory remedy, and must normally seek only a restrictive remedy. Nevertheless, positive obligations may be sought where they give effect to the substantial nature of the restriction to be enforced. Here the restrictive nature of the right of way, not to do anything to obstruct access, incorporated an obligation to remove obstructions placed across the highway.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
 
Shea and Another v Drury (Vo) [2001] EWLands RA_62_00
11 Sep 2001
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Shea and Another v Drury (Vo) [2001] EWLands RA_54_00
11 Sep 2001
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Lloyds TSB Bank Plc v Bennett and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 1403
18 Sep 2001
CA

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Eastbourne Borough Council and Another v Allen (Valuation Officer) [2001] EWLands RA_17_1999
25 Sep 2001
LT

Land
LT RATING – valuation – local authority leisure centres – method of valuation – shortened profits basis rejected – contractor's basis adopted – simple substitute building – size and content – utilisation – allowances for under-utilisation rejected – constraints on local authority finance – effect on hypothetical rent – whether justifying stage 5 allowance – held evidence did not show allowance appropriate - assessments reduced.
[ Bailii ]
 
Eastbourne Borough Council and Another v Allen (Valuation Officer) [2001] EWLands RA_16_1999
25 Sep 2001
LT

Land
LT RATING - valuation - local authority leisure centres - method of valuation - shortened profits basis rejected - contractor's basis adopted - simple substitute building - size and content - utilisation - allowances for under-utilisation rejected - constraints on local authority finance - effect on hypothetical rent - whether justifying stage 5 allowance - held evidence did not show allowance appropriate - assessments reduced.
[ Bailii ]
 
Pennington, Re [2001] EWLands LP_22_2000
25 Sep 2001
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Inland Revenue Commissioners v Hashmi and Another Gazette, 25 October 2001; Times, 02 November 2001
4 Oct 2001
ChD
Hart J
Insolvency, Land
In 1989, the taxpayer transferred property by means of a trust deed in favour of his son in consideration of his 'natural love and affection' for him. Four years later the commissioners investigated his tax affairs, and concluded that there were substantial undisclosed business profits. He died in 1997 owing substantial sums, and the commissioners sought to set aside the 1989 deed as being made in order to put his assets beyond reach. Held: The possible dual purpose of the transaction did not prevent the inference, supported by the facts, that the statutory requirement was satisfied, and the deed was set aside. The execution of a deed transferring his beneficial interest in business premises to his son in consideration of "natural love and affection" was a transaction at an undervalue.
Insolvency Act 1986 423
1 Citers


 
James v Shropshire County Council [2001] EWLands ACQ_110_1999
8 Oct 2001
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Mills v Arun District Council [2001] EWCA Civ 1601
15 Oct 2001
CA

Land

White Herring Fisheries Act 1771
[ Bailii ]
 
Mullard v Sharma and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 1579
15 Oct 2001
CA

Land, trusts

[ Bailii ]
 
Bland v Ingram's Estates Ltd and others [2001] EWCA Civ 1594
18 Oct 2001
CA

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Clifford v Grimley and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 1658
23 Oct 2001
CA

Land

[ Bailii ]

 
 Wright v Johnson; CA 24-Oct-2001 - [2002] 2 P & CR 15; [2001] EWCA Civ 1667

 
 Delaware Mansions Limited and others v Lord Mayor and Citizens of the City of Westminster; HL 25-Oct-2001 - Times, 26 October 2001; Gazette, 22 November 2001; [2002] 1 AC 321; [2001] UKHL 55; [2001] 4 All ER 737; 79 Con LR 39; [2001] 3 WLR 1007; [2002] TCLR 8; [2001] 44 EGCS 150; [2002] BLGR 1; [2002] BLR 25; [2001] NPC 151
 
Halliday (Vo) v Priory Hospital Group of Nottingham Clinic [2001] EWLands RA_43_1998
26 Oct 2001
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Halliday (Vo) v Priory Hospital Group of Nottingham Clinic [2001] EWLands RA_42_1998
26 Oct 2001
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
West Hampstead Management Co Ltd v Pearl Property Ltd [2001] EWLands LRA_48_2000
31 Oct 2001
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Davies and Another v Crawley Borough Council Gazette, 15 November 2001; [2001] EWHC Admin 854
1 Nov 2001
Admn
Goldring J
Local Government, Land
The council adopted schemes licensing on street trading. The applicants had established uses on streets where such activity was now prohibited. The council offered alternative trading sites on payment of annual fees. The applicants asserted the scheme was Wednesbury unreasonable, having not made allowance for existing uses permitted by law. The authority should have made discontinuance orders which would have allowed a claim for compensation. Held: the applicants' interests in the land was tenuous, and they had no rights in land which could be affected. The Act gave the authority a wide discretion in such schemes, and their choice was not disproportionate.
Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 3
[ Bailii ]
 
Dymond v Coombes [2001] EWCA Civ 1706
1 Nov 2001
CA

Land
Neighbour dispute - parking.
[ Bailii ]
 
Mobil Oil Company Ltd v Birmingham City Council [2001] EWCA Civ 1608; [2001] EWCA Civ 1608
2 Nov 2001
CA

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Ocwen Ltd v Quinn [2001] EWCA Civ 1895
5 Nov 2001
CA

Land, Consumer
Second application for leave to appeal - adjourned
[ Bailii ]
 
Maunders v Evans [2001] EWCA Civ 1808
15 Nov 2001
CA
Chadwick LJ
Trusts, Land
Renewed application for permission to appeal against order under the 1996 Act.
Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 14(2)
[ Bailii ]
 
Lloyd and others v Dugdale and Another Gazette, 06 December 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1754; [2002] 2 P&CR 13; [2001] 48 EGCS 129; [2001] NPC 168; [2002] WTLR 863
21 Nov 2001
CA
Lord Justice Kennedy, Lord Justice Mummery, And, Sir Christopher Slade
Landlord and Tenant, Estoppel, Land, Contract, Trusts
The claimants asserted a right to possession of land, and the defendant resisted, claiming a proprietary estoppel. A predecessor had intended to grant a sub-lease to the defendant, who had arranged for his company JAD Ltd to execute major works on the strength of that promise. JAD was given permission to store items there, but JAD Ltd took up possession. The sub-lease was never signed. The head-lease was assigned to the claimants, subject to any rights of the defendants. Held: No notice was effective. Whatever estoppel arose, was in favour of JAD, not his company, and it was in possession, not him. The assignment defeated the claim of JAD Ltd by section 20. No constructive trust arose, because the claimant's conscience was not deemed to be affected.
The court set out the principles applying: "(1) Even in a case where, on a sale of land, the vendor has stipulated that the sale shall be subject to stated possible incumbrances or prior interests, there is no general rule that the court will impose a constructive trust on the purchaser to give effect to them.
(2) The court will not impose a constructive trust in such circumstances unless it is satisfied that the conscience of the estate owner is affected so that it would be inequitable to allow him to deny the claimant an interest in the property.
(3) In deciding whether or not the conscience of the new estate owner is affected in such circumstances, the crucially important question is whether he has undertaken a new obligation, not otherwise existing, to give effect to the relevant encumbrance or prior interest. If, but only if, he has undertaken such a new obligation will a constructive trust be imposed.
(4) Notwithstanding some previous authority suggesting the contrary, a contractual licence is not to be treated as creating a proprietary interest in land so as to bind third parties who acquire the land with notice of it, on this account alone: see Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold . .
(5) Proof that the purchase price by a transferee has been reduced upon the footing that he would give effect to the relevant encumbrance or prior interest may provide some indication that the transferee has undertaken a new obligation to give effect to it: see Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold . . However, since in matters relating to the title to land certainty is of prime importance, it is not desirable that constructive trusts of land should be imposed in reliance on inferences from "slender materials"."
Law of Property Act 1925 20(1) 70(1)(g)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Whitgift Homes Limited and Others v Pauline Stocks and Others [2001] EWCA Civ 1732
21 Nov 2001
CA
Lord Justice Judge, Lord Justice Jonathan Parker, And, Mr Justice Bodey
Land
Annexation of covenants - building scheme - enforceability after plots sold off.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Cheltenham and Gloucester Plc v Ashford [2001] EWCA Civ 1713; [2002] BTC 81
21 Nov 2001
CA

Income Tax, Land
The claimant lender challenged a decision as to the application of mortgage inerest tax relief at source as it applied to the calculation of sums due under te charge in this possession claim.
[ Bailii ]
 
Jones and Another v Forest Fencing Limited [2001] NPC 165; [2001] EWCA Civ 1700
21 Nov 2001
CA
Chadwick LJ, Sir Murray Stuart Smith
Land
The sellers of and disputed an order as to whether electrical equipment at the site hd been included in the contract. Held: "the answer to the question "what meaning should be given to the words used in the memorandum" cannot, I think, be a matter of serious doubt. The electrical apparatus at the site plainly included the high voltage reduction transformer, switch gear, distribution panels and isolators and the other equipment to which the judge referred. It is equally clear that the memorandum confirms that that apparatus - as well as the machinery used in the sawmill - is to be taken out. It is impossible to confine the words "the sawmill equipment will be removed and . . electrical apparatus will be taken out" to the machinery alone. And, if the electrical apparatus as well as the machinery is to be taken out, the words "the first isolator" in the context of the phrase "wiring taken out back to the first isolator" must mean the isolator on the supply side of the apparatus. It is not, I think, in dispute that the first isolator on the supply side of the high voltage reduction transformer and its associated switch gear was at the point of connection to the high voltage supply.
It follows that the purchasers were not entitled to succeed on their claim. I would allow the vendor's appeal against the order for payment."
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Wiberg v City and County of Swansea [2001] EWLands ACQ_8_2001
22 Nov 2001
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]

 
 Bogie Trading As Oakbank Services v The Forestry Commission; SCS 23-Nov-2001 - [2001] ScotCS 267; 2002 SCLR 278
 
Girls Day School Trust (1872) v Skipton House [2001] EWLands LP_19_1999
23 Nov 2001
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Keen and Another v Worcestershire County Council [2001] EWLands LCA_44_2001
26 Nov 2001
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Leslie Cook, Winifred Cook v Norlands Limited Appeal No 51 of 2000
27 Nov 2001
PC

Land, Limitation, Employment, Estoppel
(Isle of Man) The claimants had been employed for 27 years managing an amusement centre. They had a lower salary, reflecting a promise that the tied accommodation was to be 'theirs' after 7 years. After dismissal, the company sought possession, and the claimants sought transfer of the freehold, and asserted a proprietary estoppel. However there was no evidence as to the details of any calculations made, and the claimants had continued to accept low wages long after the house might have been paid for. The claim of a contract was void for uncertainty, and past performance issues did not arise.
Law Reform (Enforcement of Contracts) Act 1956 (Isle of Man)
[ PC ] - [ PC ]
 
Jindal, Regina (on the Application Of) v Birmingham City Council [2001] EWCA Civ 1889
27 Nov 2001
CA

Local Government, Land
Application for leave to appeal - judicial review of compulsory purchase order
[ Bailii ]
 
Romer, Re [2001] EWLands LRA_13_2001
29 Nov 2001
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Nelson v Nelson and others [2001] EWCA Civ 1911
29 Nov 2001
CA
Aldous LJ
Land, Trusts
Application for leave to appeal.
[ Bailii ]
 
Cannon v Warwickshire County Council [2001] EWLands LCA_106_2001
30 Nov 2001
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (on the Application of the Personal Representatives of Christopher Beeson) v Dorset County Council and Another Times, 21 December 2001; [2001] EWHC Admin 986
30 Nov 2001
QBD
Mr Justice Richards
Land, Benefits
The Council had provided financial assistance for the care of the claimant's father before his death in a residential home. Those costs were in part recoverable as a civil debt. His father had given him the house by deed of gift. The regulations provided that the father was to be treated as still possessing property of which he had denuded himself to avoid payment of the charges The local authority sought an equitable charge over the property. The council had misapplied the subjective test, of whether the father had actually known sufficient of the scheme, and the need to test the actual purpose of the gift in the father's mind. The son said the procedure lacked independence because of the potential conflict of interest and lack of independence of those making the decisions. The statutory scheme is a measure of welfare assistance, but not every part need be, and may not be covered by the Convention. The availability of judicial review was inadequate to correct that defect. There was a breach of the claimant's article 6 rights, but not under article 14.
National Assistance Act 1948 21 - National Assistance (Assessment of Resources) Regulations 1992 (1992 No 2977)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Hitchin Cow Commoners Trust, Re [2001] EWHC Ch 468
5 Dec 2001
ChD
Mr Justice Lawrence Collins
Land, Charity
Land was registered as a common. Rights had been created over the land under the 1882 Act after the Inclosure Acts. Were these rights in the nature of charitable trusts? No use of the land as a cow common had taken place with living memory, and most of the land had been occupied as a football club under leases. Held: The issue was as to whether trust was for the intended beneficiaries as a class of resident freemen, or a decision of general application on the nature of the interest of commoners in the compensation fund. The beneficiaries of the trust for use as common land for grazing are the occupiers from time to time. The Commissioners had correctly declared a trust of the land, and being a trust for the residents of a town, it was charitable.
Commons Registration Act 1965 - Commonable Rights Compensation Act 1882
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (Hargrave and Another) v Stroud District Council Times, 19 December 2001; [2001] EWHC Admin 1128
7 Dec 2001
QBD
Michael Supperstone, QC
Land
When someone objected to a public footpath order, the council has a discretion as to whether the case should be referred to the Secretary of State. In the absence of an obligation, the judicial review of the council's decision not to make such a reference failed. The existence of the discretion was not inconsistent with the Human Rights Act 1998, had not been exercised irrationally.
Highways Act 1980 119(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Gregory and Another, Regina (on the Application Of) v Turner and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 1952
7 Dec 2001
CA

Land, Litigation Practice
Application for leave to appeal.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Mayflower Estates Ltd v Highnorth Ltd and others [2001] EWCA Civ 1963
7 Dec 2001
CA

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (on the Application of Fuller, Wright, Tarr and Booth) v Chief Constable of Dorset Police and Another [2001] EWHC Admin 1039
12 Dec 2001
Admn
Justice Stanley Burnton
Crime, Human Rights, Land
The applicants sought to test the human rights compatibility of the section when applied to gypsies. The travellers sought to stay on land within the district. The local authority used its policy, and agreed to tolerate the encampment for a short time. There was a serious incident with police officers being held temporarily. After refusing to leave, police raided the encampment. Held The section had to be construed tightly since it created a criminal offence. 61(1) requires that the trespassers have not complied with the occupier’s request that they leave as a condition of the making of a direction by the police The question was not whether the section infringed rights, but whether a direction given under the section was an infringement. A landowner requesting trespassers to remove their goods from his land is not infringing the right to possession of goods. The section provided remedies and was proportionate. Their presence on the land was temporary, and the encampment was not their home within the article, but there could be an interference with family life. In this case though the travellers had not been given opportunity to comply with the request for them to leave, and the reaction of the police was disproportionate. The direction was not valid.
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 61
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Hamden Homes Ltd, Re [2001] EWLands LP_38_1999
12 Dec 2001
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]

 
 AIB Group (UK) Plc (Formerly Allied Irish Banks Plc and AIB Finance Limited) v Martin and Another; HL 13-Dec-2001 - Times, 17 December 2001; Gazette, 14 February 2002; [2001] UKHL 63; [2002] 1 WLR 94 (HL)

 
 Noakes and Co Ltd v Rice; HL 17-Dec-2001 - [1902] AC 24; [1901] UKHL 3
 
Rodwell and Abbey National Plc v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham [2001] EWLands ACQ_139_2000
19 Dec 2001
LT

Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Brcic v Halifax Plc [2001] EWCA Civ 2042
20 Dec 2001
CA
Chadwick LJ
Land
Mortgage possession action.
[ Bailii ]
 
Cannon v Warwickshire County Council LCS/106/2001
31 Dec 2001
LT

Land

[ LT ]
 
Dr W G and Mrs D Horton v Mr L F Griffin, Worcestershire Council LCA/64-66/2001
31 Dec 2001
LT

Land

[ LT ]
 
Mr A & Mrs S Keen v Worcestershire County Council LCA/44/2001; LCA/44/2001
31 Dec 2001
LT

Land

[ LT ]
 
AJ & M Davies v Hyder Plc Compensation Authority LCA/41/2001; LCA/41/2001
31 Dec 2001
LT

Land

[ LT ]
 
Weymede Litho Printers v Runnymede Borough Council ACQ/81/2001; ACQ/81/2001
31 Dec 2001
LT

Land

[ LT ]
 
Terrance Maldwyn Wieberg v City and County of Swansea ACQ/8/2001; ACQ/8/2001
31 Dec 2001
LT

Land

[ LT ]
 
Beard and Natwest Bank v Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council ACQ/72/2001
31 Dec 2001
LT
P H Clarke FRICS
Land, Damages, Local Government
LT COMPENSATION - compulsory acquisition of long leasehold house in poor condition - mortgage - value of unencumbered long leasehold interest determined at £7,600 - no deduction of charges when determining market value - lack of evidence regarding mortgage - no determination of amounts payable to claimants
An order had been made for the compulsory purchase of a dwelling to make it fit for habitation. It was held on a long lease at a low rent, and was subject to a charge. The property was valued at £7,000 by the council 's expert, but he had deducted the seller's costs which would not normally be borne by a purchaser. Held: Neither the local authority's costs nor the value of any of the local authority's land charges registered against the property should reduce the valuation. Those were matters between the council and the respondent, and not for the valuation.
Housing Act 1985 - Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981
[ LT ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.