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. Â
Registered Land - From: 2004 To: 2004
This page lists 9 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.
ÂRother District Investments Limited v Corke, Orr, Richards [2004] EWHC 14 (Ch)
20 Jan 2004
ChD
Lightman J
Landlord and Tenant, Registered Land
The court was asked as to the legal effect of a purported peaceable re-entry and forfeiture of a lease by a purchaser of the reversion prior to registration of the purchaser as proprietor at HM Land Registry. Held: The appeal was denied. What had been "a forfeiture by estoppel" between Rother and the Defendants was "fed" and became a full legal forfeiture valid as against the world.
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Â
Aujla v Sanghera [2004] EWCA Civ 121
23 Jan 2004
CA
Registered Land
[ Bailii ]
Â
 Joyce v Rigolli; CA 2-Feb-2004 - [2004] EWCA Civ 79
Â
Geoffrey Allan Chadwick, Sylvia Joyce Chadwick, Edward James Chadwick v Abbotswood Properties Ltd, Gordon Leonard Hauser, Pamela Ann Hauser, Rectory Pump Ltd [2004] EWCH 1058 (Ch); [2004] All ER (D) 213
18 May 2004
ChD
The Honourable Mr Justice Lewison
Registered Land, Estoppel
Between to new houses was a steep bank. Who owned it? Before the transfer there had been different plans and much correspondence. Held: Where there was doubt as to the extent of land transferred, the court could look to the physical boundaries and characteristics of the property. The Land Registry plan showed the boundary at the top of the bank. This matched a later boundary fence. Though the parties had orally agreed that the boundary should be at the foot of the bank, the precise location of the fence was identified, and a fence was erected in the agreed position. It would now be unconscionable for the Chadwicks to assert a claim to ownership of the bank.
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Â
J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v The United Kingdom [2004] ECHR 727; [2005] ECHR 921
8 Jun 2004
ECHR
Pellonpaa P
Human Rights, Registered Land, Limitation
Admissibility
European Convention on Human Rights A1P1 - Limitation Act 1980 - Land Registration Act 1925
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Â
Pritchard Englefield v Steinberg and Steinberg [2004] EWHC 1908 (Ch)
30 Jul 2004
ChD
The Honourable Mr Justice Peter Smith
Litigation Practice, Registered Land
Enforcement of charging order absolute.
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Â
Topplan Estates Ltd v David Townley [2004] EWCA Civ 1369; Times, 15 November 2004
27 Oct 2004
CA
Mr Justice Hooper Lord Justice Pill Lord Justice Parker
Registered Land, Limitation
The registered proprietor of land appealed a finding that the defendant had established adverse possession of their land. The claimant had occupied it as part of his farm. Originally there had been a grazing tenancy. The tenancy was terminated, and the land sold, but he did not vacate the land. The new owner granted a further annual licence to the claimant's father, but not after his death in 1982. The claimant continued his occupation, taking off grass crops and grazing the land. The land was sold again, but the purchaser inspected the land in December when the cows had been taken off the land. A part of the land had been used whilst a road was widened, and the claimant had not objected. The appellant said this use was not continuous and apparent. Held: There was no obligation on a claimant to notify the paper owner of his presence: "there can be no obligation in law on a squatter to draw the true owner's attention to the fact that time is running against him." ". . . the epithet 'adverse' in the expression 'adverse possession' in paragraph 8 of Part I of Schedule 1 to the Limitation Act 1980 refers not to the quality of the possession but to the capacity of the party claiming possessory title (“the squatter”) as being a person 'in whose favour the period of limitation can run'. . . In particular, it does not connote any element of aggression, hostility or subterfuge. " and "the word 'possession' in the expression 'adverse possession' means no more than 'ordinary possession of the land' (per Lord Browne-Wilkinson at para 36: see para 39 above). However, in order to establish possession in this context, the squatter must prove (a) sufficient objective acts to constitute physical possession (“factual possession”) coupled with (b) an intention to possess (animus possidendi). “Occupation of the land alone is not enough, nor is an intention to occupy which is not put into effect by action." and "an intention to possess must be distinguished from an intention to own: it is only the former which is relevant in the context of adverse possession" and "a squatter will establish factual possession if he can show that he used the land in the way one would expect him to use it if he were the true owner and in such a way that the owner is excluded " and "Just as the issue as to factual possession depends crucially on the facts of the particular case, so also, in my judgment, must the issue as to the existence of the requisite intention to possess. In particular, whether the existence of factual possession is sufficient in itself to establish the existence of the requisite intention to possess, or whether some further evidence of intention is required, must depend on the particular facts of the case. "
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Â
Cook v Bates [2004] EWCA Civ 1771
26 Nov 2004
CA
Registered Land
Application for leave to appeal.
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Â
Scribes West Ltd v Relsa Anstalt and others [2004] EWCA Civ 1744; [2005] 1 WLR 1847
20 Dec 2004
CA
Rix, Mummery, Carnwath LJJ
Landlord and Tenant, Registered Land
The claimant challenged the forfeiture of its lease by a freeholder which had acquired the registered freehold title but had not yet registered its ownership. The second defendant had forfeited the lease by peacable re-entry for arrears of rent, and created a further lease. Held: The judge was right to hold that, following the transfer, RB was the person entitled to the income of the land, and that therefore the forfeiture was valid.
Law of Property Act 1925 141
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Â
