Scottish and Newcastle Plc v Raguz: CA 24 Jul 2003

Leases had been granted. They had been assigned to the defendant who had assigned them again. The last assignee became insolvent and statutory demands were served on the claimant under the 1995 Act for rent. The claimant paid the sums due and now sought them from the defendant. He countered that his obligation under the 1925 Act was as guarantor, and that his obligation might be discharged by a claimant’s wrongful act.
Held: The 1925 Act implied an obligation of indemnity, and was unaffected by any act of the claimant.
The indemnity applied also to any VAT charged to the rent: ‘The original lease constituted a contract for a relevant supply by the landlord to the tenant for which the rent covenanted to be paid was consideration. In view of the terms of s. 89(3) it is indisputable that when the lessor opted to tax the supply there was a change in the VAT charged on that supply. That change occurred before the supplies with which this claim is concerned were rendered. Accordingly the express terms of s. 89(1) requires VAT at the relevant rate to be added to the rent as part of the consideration for the supply by the Lessor to the Tenant. In my view it follows that the default of the Tenant in paying the rent including the VAT thereon falls within the terms of the implied covenant because it constitutes a failure to pay the rent ‘by and in the registered lease reserved and contained’ as amended in accordance with s. 89(1).’

Lord Justice May Lord Justice Sedley The Vice-Chancellor
[2003] EWCA Civ 1070, Times 09-Sep-2003, [2004] LandTR 11
Bailii
Land Registration Act 1925 24(1), Landlord & Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedYeoman Credit Ltd v Latter CA 1961
The distinction between contracts of guarantee and indemnity are real and important and to be retained. . .
CitedHarris v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd ChD 30-Jun-1904
The case concerned the question whether an original lessee could enforce by injunction against a successor in title to the term, a provision in a lease precluding alteration without consent. The ground on which he sought to do so was a covenant by . .
CitedButler Estates Company Ltd v Bean CA 1942
. .
CitedAllied London Investments Ltd v Hambro Life Assurance Ltd (No 2) ChD 1984
The lessors sued the original lessees for rent due under the lease after the term had been assigned to another. The lessors had given a licence to assign and the licence contained a guarantee from a third party to the lessors that the assignee would . .
CitedRPH Ltd v Mirror Group (Holdings) Ltd 1993
. .

Cited by:
See AlsoScottish and Newcastle Plc v Raguz CA 6-Mar-2007
The claimant was the original tenant under two 99 year underleases granted in 1967, and assigned them to the defendant who then himself assigned them. The eventual assignee had become insolvent. The landlord recovered the rents from the claimant who . .
See AlsoScottish and Newcastle Plc v Raguz ChD 27-Jul-2004
The claimant had previously assigned its interest in a lease to the defendant, who had in turn re-assigned it. The eventual tenant became insolvent, and the landlord had recovered sums from the claimant who now sought an indemnity under the covenant . .
See AlsoScottish and Newcastle Plc v Raguz ChD 11-Apr-2006
The defendant had taken assignments of the term of two underleases from the claimant, and then re-assigned them to a limited company with guarantors of the rent, and they in turn re-assigned the leases. The last company became insolvent. The . .
See AlsoScottish and Newcastle Plc v Raguz HL 29-Oct-2008
The lease had been assigned by the claimant to the defendant and on again to a tenant who became insolvent. The landlord had recovered sums said to be due from the claimant who now sought an indemnity from the defendant. The defendant said that the . .
CitedMason v Boscawen ChD 18-Dec-2008
The landlord had opted to charge VAT on part of the rent. The tenant fell into arrears and now challenged a notice to quit which included the VAT. The court was asked what constituted ‘rent’ for the purposes of a demand for rent founding a notice to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Registered Land

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.184868

Bradshaw v Wilson (Beneficial Interests, Trusts and Restrictions : Express Agreement): LRA 16 Feb 2018

The parties had been in a relationship for several years, and had a child together. The Respondent bought a property, funded by a large cash element which he provided and the balance on mortgage. The Applicant owned her own home (where they lived together with their son) but was not able to sell it before the Respondent’s purchase. When she did eventually sell, she paid a lump sum of pounds 30,000 (almost the entire equity) to the mortgagees of the Respondent’s property. She said this was done pursuant to an agreement that she was entitled to an interest in his property. The Respondent denied this. It was held that she was entitled to a beneficial interest in the Respondent’s property but there was insufficient evidence to determine the shares.

[2018] UKFTT 176 (PC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.616298

The Chief Land Registrar v Franks, Franks, Bedward, Bedward: LRA 7 Jul 2011

LRA (Practice and Procedure : Appeals) Effect of Adjudicator’s order being set aside on appeal – whether a cancelled application can be restored to the register with its original priority date if appeal successful – third party interests. – (1) This reference is to the Court of Appeal decision on appeal from, and upholding, the High Court decision at: Franks and Anor v Bedward and Anor [2010] EWHC 1650 (Ch) (13 July 2010).
(2) That High Court decision was itself an appeal from the first instance decision of the Adjudicator that the Applicants’ application be cancelled as sanction for non-compliance with directions – .

[2011] EWLandRA 2005 – 1122
Bailii
England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.517433

Osborne, Osborne v Lawton, Noyes, Sandford-Fawcett ): LRA 8 Mar 2011

LRA Adverse possession under paragraph 5(4) of Schedule 6 to the Land Registration Act 2002. Disputed land fenced in as part of the garden of the house being bought by the Applicants. Reasonableness of Applicants’ belief that the disputed land was part of the property which they bought.

[2011] EWLandRA 2010 – 1066
Bailii
Land Registration Act 2002
England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.517432

Norfolk Naturalists Trust v Lumley, Ellison (0940): LRA 23 Sep 2011

LRA (Rivers, Waterways and Foreshore : Accretion and Diluvion) Accretion and diluvion – effect of change in Mean High Water Mark – principles of construction of pre-registration deeds – purported grantor of land without a title subsequently acquiring title to the same land – estoppel perfecting grantor’s title – effect on subsequent purchaser

[2011] EWLandRA 2010 – 0940
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
See AlsoNorfolk Naturalists Trust v Lumley, Ellison (0939) LRA 23-Sep-2011
LRA (Rivers, Waterways and Foreshore) Accretion and diluvion – effect of change in Mean High Water Mark – principles of construction of pre-registration deeds – purported grantor of land without a title . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.517435

The Chief Land Registrar v Silkstone, Silkstone, and Tatnall: LRA 14 Jul 2011

LRA (Practice and Procedure : Status of Parties) Respondents claiming right of way over Applicant’s land seeking to withdraw from proceedings immediately prior to hearing preserving the right to bring further proceedings alleging the right of way in the future. Effect of reference by the Chief Land Registrar on the power of a party to withdraw an application or objection without a decision being given on the merits. Exercise of discretion of Adjudicator to permit such a withdrawal.

[2011] EWLandRA 2008 – 0823
Bailii
England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.517434

Rossetti Ltd v Thresher Wines Acquisitions Ltd, First Quench Retailing Limited, Whitbread (UK) Limited: LRA 8 Sep 2009

LRA Alteration of the register to correct a mistake – Schedule 4 paragraph 5 of he Land Registration Act 1925 – mistake made on first registration in 1971 – omission of land from title – nature of right to seek correction of register – whether right passes to purchaser under section 63 of the Law of Property Act 1925 – whether exceptional reasons exist to refuse alteration – Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR – unjust enrichment – delay – abuse of process

Owen Rhys DA
[2009] EWLandRA 2008 – 0633
Bailii
England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.517403

Port of London Authority v David Frank Devere and 7 Others – 0755: LRA 27 Feb 2013

LRA Rivers, Waterways and Foreshore : Construction of Relevant Legislation – Trial of a preliminary issue as to whether the Applicant can establish documentary title to part of the bed and foreshore of the River Thames; the ‘ad medium filum’ rule; true construction of the words ‘in front of or immediately adjacent to’

[2013] EWLandRA 2011 – 0755
Bailii
Port of London Act 1908 1 7, Port of London Act 1912, Port of London Act 1968 212 Sch 11, Thames Conservancy Act 1857 50 51, Thames Conservancy Act 1894 58 59, Port of London (Consolidation) Act 1920 7, Crown Lands Act 1702 5, Crown Lands Act 1853 5, Crown Lands Act 1829 8, Law of Property Act 1925 62(3), Poor Law Amendments Act 1868 27
England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.517387

DeVere, Regina (on The Application of) v Land Registry: Admn 21 Oct 2013

Renewed applications for permission to apply for judicial review for separate claims which were heard together since they are closely connected and are concerned with two decisions of the Chief to register the title of two adjacent and separate parcels of land beneath and adjacent to the Grand Union Canal at Brentford in London. The relevant stretch of the canal runs into the River Thames and has the River Brent running within or close by it.
Held: Both of Mr DeVere’s applications were both an abuse of process and totally without merit.

Anthony Thornton QC HHJ
[2013] EWHC 2477 (Admin)
Bailii

Registered Land

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.516966

Norwich and Peterborough Building Society v Steed: CA 5 Mar 1992

The land-owner had given his mother power of attorney over his home. Her signature was forged on a transfer, and the transferee executed a charge in favour of the appellant. Transfer and charge were registered. A first line of cases restored the defendant to the title, but the original transfer had been found voidable, and the charge left in effect.

Purchas, Butler-Sloss, Scott LJJ
[1992] EWCA Civ 5, [1993] Ch 116
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoArgyle Building Society v Hammond CA 1984
The registered freehold proprietor (S) of a property lived abroad, his mother having power of attorney. His sister and her husband, Mr and Mrs Hammond, had the register altered to show themselves as the freehold proprietors. The primary case was . .

Cited by:
CitedGold Harp Properties Ltd v Macleod and Others CA 29-Jul-2014
The company appealed against an order re-instating to the register leases which the company said it had forfeited for non-payment of rent. After the forfeiture, the landlord had granted new leases. It appealed saying that exceptional circumstances . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land, Trusts

Updated: 14 November 2021; Ref: scu.262622

Link Lending Ltd v Bustard: CA 23 Apr 2010

The respondent had been detained in a secure mental unit for a year. In that time her home was charged to the appellant. She asserted that she had been a person in actual occupation. The chargee now appealed against a finding that the respondent had been such a person. She had been taken advantage of and persuaded to sell the house to a third party who had created the charge, but not paid her. Though she was not personally at the house, her personal effects were still there. Her condition meant that she would not have had capacity at the time she executed the transfer.
Held: The facts suggested points both ways, but ‘the courts are reluctant to lay down, or even suggest, a single legal test for determining whether a person is in actual occupation. The decisions on statutory construction identify the factors that have to be weighed by the judge on this issue. The degree of permanence and continuity of presence of the person concerned, the intentions and wishes of that person, the length of absence from the property and the reason for it and the nature of the property and personal circumstances of the person are among the relevant factors.’
The decision was one of fact and was to be disturbed only for clear error. No such error had been shown.

Mummery LJ, Jacob LJ, Sullivan LJ
[2010] EWCA Civ 424, [2010] 28 EG 86, [2010] 18 EG 98 (CS), [2010] 2 EGLR 55
Bailii
Land Registration Act 2002 29
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedStrand Securities Ltd v Caswell CA 2-Feb-1965
The leaving of furniture in a flat or having a key to the flat or making occasional use of it was not enough to constitute actual occupation. Where A permits B to occupy land on B’s own behalf by way of gratuitous licence, A’s capacity as licensor . .
CitedStockholm Finance Ltd v Garden Holdings Inc 26-Oct-1995
Robert Walker J considered how a court should decide on whether a person was in actual occupation of a house: ‘Whether a person’s intermittent presence at a house which is fully furnished, and ready for almost immediate use, should be seen as . .
AppliedThompson v Foy ChD 20-May-2009
Lewison J discussed the decision in Etridge: ‘In the light of the arguments before me, there are some additional observations I should make. First, although in Etridge Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead described the paradigm case of a relationship where . .
CitedRoyal Bank of Scotland v Etridge (No 2); Barclays Bank plc v Harris; Midland Bank plc v Wallace, etc HL 11-Oct-2001
Wives had charged the family homes to secure their husband’s business borrowings, and now resisted possession orders, claiming undue influence.
Held: Undue influence is an equitable protection created to undo the effect of excess influence of . .
CitedWilliams and Glyn’s Bank Ltd v Boland HL 19-Jun-1980
Wife in Occupation had Overriding Interest
The wife had made a substantial financial contribution to the purchase price of the house which was registered only in her husband’s name, and charged to the bank. The bank sought possession. The wife resisted saying that she had an overriding . .
CitedAbbey National Building Society v Cann HL 29-Mar-1990
Registered land was bought with an advance from the plaintiff. The transfer and charge were registered one month later, but in the meantime, the buyer’s parents moved in. When the buyer defaulted, his mother resisted possession proceedings, saying . .
CitedHoggett v Hoggett CA 1980
The court considered whether there had been an effective surrender of a property at law.
Held: Where a person claims to have been in occupation of land at law, but was not physically present, it was necessary to show that his occupation was . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.408600

Cantelmi and Another v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 26 Jan 2016

Appeal from a decision of Judge Ann McAllister, sitting as a Judge of the Property Chamber

[2016] UKUT 35 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedCantelmi, Nakli v Hart LRA 13-Nov-2014
Application for a defined boundary . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.562414

Phillips and Others v Vaughan: LRA 4 Mar 2016

LRA Application to close registered title by documentary title owners/ first registration of possessory title based on adverse possession/ Whether factual and mental elements of adverse possession established/ Whether the occupation was with consent/ Whether witness statements made by their apparent author/ whether a witness offered an inducement to give evidence/ Whether a further adjournment of proceedings to facilitate a third opportunity to obtain handwriting evidence should be grant

[2016] EWLandRA 2014 – 0497
Bailii
Limitation Act 1980 15 17, Land Registration Act 2002 11(7)

Registered Land, Limitation

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.564466

J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v The United Kingdom: ECHR 30 Aug 2007

UK Advers Possession Law – Not Compliant

The claimant had said that the UK law which allowed it to lose land by virtue of twelve year’s occupation by a squatter, interfered with its right to ownership of property.
Held: The UK law on adverse possession did comply with the Convention. The limitation period of twelve years for actions for the recovery of land pursued a legitimate aim in the general interest. The contracting states enjoyed a wide margin of appreciation in implementing social and economic policies, and it was not unreasonable for a state to provide for the extinction of title where the requirements of adverse possession were satisfied.

[2007] ECHR 700, [2007] ECHR 705, Times 01-Oct-2007, 44302/02, [2007] All ER (D) 177, (2008) 46 EHRR 45
Bailii, Bailii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights, Land Registration Act 2002
Human Rights
Citing:
Appeal fromJ A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Nov-2005
The claimants had been the registered proprietors of land, they lost it through the adverse possession of former tenants holding over. They claimed that the law had dispossessed them of their lawful rights.
Held: The cumulative effect of the . .
CitedJ A Pye (Oxford) Ltd and Others v Graham and Another HL 4-Jul-2002
The claimants sought ownership by adverse possession of land. Once the paper owner had been found, they indicated a readiness to purchase their interest. The court had found that this letter contradicted an animus possidendi. The claimant had . .
AdmissibilityJ A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v The United Kingdom ECHR 8-Jun-2004
Admissibility . .

Cited by:
AppliedOfulue and Another v Bossert CA 29-Jan-2008
The claimants appealed an order finding that the defendant had acquired their land by adverse possession. They said that the defendant had asserted in defence to possession proceedings that they were tenants, and that this contradicted an intent to . .
CitedLancashire County Council v Buchanan Admn 7-Nov-2007
The defendant estate agent was prosecuted for misdescribing the ability of his client to convey good title to the land offered. The seller did not initially have a registered possessory title to part of the land.
Held: The agent’s appeal . .
CitedBaxter v Mannion ChD 18-Mar-2010
B appealed against an order for rectification against him of the land register returning ownership to M. B had obtained registration with possessory title, claiming to have kept horses on the field for many years in adverse possession of it. M had . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Registered Land

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.263548

F and H (Didsbury) Ltd v Plant, Plant, Bond: LRA 4 Mar 2013

LRA Charges and Charging Orders – Charging order – first and second respondents were the joint owners of land both at law and in equity – applicant obtains judgment against second respondent – second respondent executes a document assigning or purporting to assign her beneficial interest in the land to the third respondent – district judge makes interim and final charging orders over the second respondent’s interest in the land in favour of the applicant – applicant applies to register a restriction to protect the charging orders – respondents object – issues as to whether the respondents are entitled to object in light of the charging orders having already been made and whether the assignment to the third respondent was a sham or not.
[2013] EWLandRA 2012 – 0614
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 08 October 2021; Ref: scu.510148

Sinclair v Morrison, McNealis: LRA 9 May 2012

LRA Easements and Profits A Prendre – Acquisition of easement by prescription; easement on foot over existing right of way granted by deed; identification of the dominant tenement; whether user as of right; whether such user was permissive and/or continuous; Prescription Act 1832, section 4; period next before suit or action; Limitation Act 1980, sections 15(1), 38
Edward Cousins Adj
[2012] EWLandRA 2011 – 0331
Bailii
Prescription Act 1832 4, Limitation Act 1980 15(1) 38
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedHarris v Flower CA 1904
The servient land-owner alleged an excessive user by which it was attempted to impose an additional burden on the servient tenement in the use of a right of way for obtaining access to a factory erected partly on the land to which the right of way . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 October 2021; Ref: scu.510152

First National Bank Plc v Thompson: CA 25 Jul 1995

A charge executed before a purchase was ‘fed’ by a subsequent purchase and had priority. ‘Feeding the estoppel’ doctrine may apply to charges on registered land. The estoppel was fed by a later purchase without a clear recital of the title in the charge.
Ind Summary 31-Jul-1995, Times 25-Jul-1995, Gazette 15-Sep-1995
Land Registration Act 1925
England and Wales

Updated: 07 June 2021; Ref: scu.80559

Norfolk Naturalists Trust v Lumley, Ellison (0939): LRA 23 Sep 2011

LRA (Rivers, Waterways and Foreshore) Accretion and diluvion – effect of change in Mean High Water Mark – principles of construction of pre-registration deeds – purported grantor of land without a title subsequently acquiring title to the same land – estoppel perfecting grantor’s title – effect on subsequent purchaser
[2011] EWLandRA 2010 – 0939
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoNorfolk Naturalists Trust v Lumley, Ellison (0940) LRA 23-Sep-2011
LRA (Rivers, Waterways and Foreshore : Accretion and Diluvion) Accretion and diluvion – effect of change in Mean High Water Mark – principles of construction of pre-registration deeds – purported grantor of land . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 April 2021; Ref: scu.465872

Morris v Rae: SCS 5 Apr 2011

The complainer had purchased land from the defender, but the Keeper of the Registers refused to register the transfer, saying that the disponer was not the owner. The claim was for breach of warrandice.
Lord Clarke
[2011] ScotCS CSIH – 30, 2011 SCLR 428, 2011 SLT 701, 2011 GWD 13-305, [2011] CSIH 30
Bailii
Citing:
CitedClark v Lindale Homes Limited SCS 1994
The court set out the conditions to found a claim for breach of warrandice on a land purchase: ‘Although eviction did not mean physical removal, it did involve the emergence of a real or threatened burden on the property which had to come from a . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromMorris v Rae SC 7-Nov-2012
The pursuer had bought land from the responder which in turn had bought from a company now in liquidation. On application for registration, the Keepr of the registers said the title had not been made out, and he was unable to complete the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 March 2021; Ref: scu.431766

London Borough of Wandsworth v Rapose, Rapose, Rapose, De Souza, Rapose, Gracias, Haq, Scullion: LRA 1 Apr 2008

Compulsory purchase
[2008] EWLandRA 2007 – 0167
Bailii
Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981 3 4 5 6 9, Acquisition of Land Act 1981 5 11 12 13A 15 23, Compulsory Purchase of Land (Vesting Declarations) Regulations 1990, Compulsory Purchase by Non-Ministerial Acquiring Authorities (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1990, Adjudicator to HM Land Registry (Practice and Procedure) Rules 2003 31, Land Registration Act 2002 3 4(1)(a)(i) 29(2)(a)(ii) 30(2)(a)(ii)

Updated: 05 March 2021; Ref: scu.429593

Meldale Limited v Ludgershall Parish Council (Easements): LRA 27 Sep 2007

LRA Right of way acquired by prescription – doctrine of lost modern grant – whether acquired for all purposes or limited to agricultural purposes only – whether abandoned – Ludgershall Inclosure Act 1777 – Ludgershall Inclosure Award 1778 -Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, section 67(5) – Inclosure Act 1857, section 12 – Commons Act 1876, section 29
[2007] EWLandRA 2005 – 2006
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 05 March 2021; Ref: scu.429573

Fatemi-Ardakani v Taheri, Fatemi-Ardakani (Deeds : Powers of Attorney): LRA 18 Sep 2007

LRA Validity of transfer – whether donee of power of attorney can sign a deed in his own name – authority required – whether transfer must indicate that he is so signing – effect of failure to comply with Rule 82 of the Land Registration Rules 2003 – Powers of Attorney Act 1971 ss 7 and 10 – Frontin v Small (1790 2 Lord Raym 1417, White v Cuyler (1795) 6 T.R 176, Wilkes v Back (1802) 2 East 142, Combes’ Case (1613) 9 Co. Rep 75a
[2007] EWLandRA 2006 – 1313
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 05 March 2021; Ref: scu.429574

Arnold and Arnold v Roughton Land Trust Musker and Musker, (Practice and Procedure): LRA 5 Nov 2007

LRA Adverse possession – locus standi of a person not having an interest in the land – adding new parties – holding a substantive hearing in absence of a party – Limitation Act 1980 Section 15; Schedule 1, paragraphs 1 and 8 – Land Registration Act 2002 Schedule 4; Adjudicator to Her Majesty’s Land Registry (Practice and Procedure) Rules 2003 Rule 2; Rule 24 (1)(a); Part 5, Rule 33(1); Rule 38; Rule 38(1)(a)(i);
[2007] EWLandRA 2006 – 0865
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 05 March 2021; Ref: scu.429577

Rees v The National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or National Beauty: LRA 5 Mar 2007

Boundary Dispute
[2007] EWLandRA 2005 – 1838
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedStephenson and Another v Johnson and Another CA 12-Jul-2000
There had been a dispute as to the correct boundary between two properties in North Yorkshire. The land had been in common ownership until 1973. The 1973 conveyance showed the boundary in a position which the claimants said was determinative. The . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 February 2021; Ref: scu.429564

Bank of Scotland Plc v King and others: ChD 23 Nov 2007

The parties contracted to buy and sell a property. The lending bank sought possession, saying that it had advanced the money which had been spent acquirng the property. The defendant purchasers said that completion had not taken place, the full price had not been paid, possession had not been given, and the parties had agreed to rescission.
Held: An executed transfer had been delivered. That delivery had not been explicitly in escrow, but the full purchase price had not been paid. The possibility that a vendor’s lien could apply ‘shows that it is perfectly possible in law for a vendor to complete a transfer unconditionally, even where part of the purchase price has not been paid.’ In this case the document had not been delivered in escrow.
The vendors were to be taken to have consented to their vendors’ lien being subordinated to the interests of the claimants. The Bank was entitled to register its charge.
Morgan J
[2007] EWHC 2747 (Ch)
Bailii
Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 1(5)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedBowker v Burdekin 1843
Parke B considered how a court identified whether a document had been delivered in escrow: ‘you are to look at all the facts attending the execution, to all that took place at the time, and to the result of the transaction; and therefore, though it . .
CitedThompson v McCullough CA 1947
Thompson had agreed to buy a tenanted property, had paid part of the purchase price, and had received a conveyance in escrow pending payment of the balance. He at that point gave McCullough notice to quit. Two months later Thompson paid the balance . .
QualifiedWatkins v Nash 1875
The instrument at issue was delivered to the solicitor acting for the party intended to benefit under it. It was claimed that it was delivered in escrow.
Held: On the detailed facts the delivery was not intended to be a delivery to the . .
QualifiedLondon Freehold and Leasehold Property Company v Suffield 1897
Where an instrument is delivered to the party who is to benefit under the instrument, any oral statement that the delivery is not an absolute delivery of the deed is of no effect. Where several persons are parties to a deed as grantees and one of . .
CitedWilliam Cory and Son Limited v Inland Revenue Commissioners CA 1964
Lord Denning MR discussed what was meant by delivery of a document in escrow: ‘When an instrument is delivered in escrow, that only means that it is delivered on condition (which may be expressed or implied by conduct) that it is not to be operative . .
CitedBentray Investments Limited v Venner Time Switches Limited ChD 1985
bentray_vennerChD1985
Stuart-Smith J discussed the circumstances under which a deed was said to have been delivered in escrow: ‘the passages to which I have referred seem to establish that the intention of the maker must be made clear, at least where the deed is . .
CitedKettlewell v Watson 1884
A vendor’s lien was postponed to the equitable interest of a third party with whom the purchaser from the vendor had had dealings. . .
CitedBarclays Bank Plc v Estates and Commercial Limited CA 20-Feb-1996
Millett LJ discussed the assertion of a vendor’s lien where a third party would be adversely affected: ‘A party with an equitable charge can be taken to agree to the postponement of his property against any party who was allowed to his knowledge to . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 February 2021; Ref: scu.261500

Allen v Matthews: CA 13 Mar 2007

The defendants appealed an order refusing title by adverse possession to registered land. They denied that the limitation period had been restarted by their solicitor’s letter acknowledging the title.
Held: The letter must be read as a whole. As such it was an admission of title. The requirement that the possession be adverse requires only that the possession was not pursuant to a licence, whether express or implied, from the owner. This is because possession is not adverse if it is enjoyed under a legal title. Whether a person with limited permission to use or occupy land might rely on more extensive activity to claim adverse possession is a question of fact turning on the circumstances of the case.
Ward LJ, Moore-Bick LJ, Lawrence Collins LJ
[2007] EWCA Civ 216
Bailii
Limitation Act 1980 15
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedMayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Lambeth v George Bigden and Others CA 1-Dec-2000
A block of flats had been occupied over several years by a succession of squatters. The present occupiers appealed an order for possession, and the authority appealed refusal of possession for other flats. The occupiers asserted possessory title. . .
CitedRichardson v Younger 1871
When there are two joint claimants to possessory title, and it is said that they had acknowledged the paper owner’s title, the acknowledgment must be given by or on behalf of both of them. . .
CitedEdginton v Clark CA 1964
An offer to purchase the paper owner’s interest, even if made ‘subject to contract’, can be a sufficient acknowledgement of his title to defeat a claim for adverse possession. Upjohn LJ said: ‘If a man makes an offer to purchase freehold property, . .
CitedAsbury v Asbury 1898
A defendant to a claim for adverse possession made by two joint claimants, and who asserts an acknowledgement of his title must show that the acknowledgement was by both claimants. . .
CitedJ A Pye (Oxford) Ltd and Others v Graham and Another HL 4-Jul-2002
The claimants sought ownership by adverse possession of land. Once the paper owner had been found, they indicated a readiness to purchase their interest. The court had found that this letter contradicted an animus possidendi. The claimant had . .
CitedBuckinghamshire County Council v Moran CA 13-Feb-1989
The parties’ respective properties were separated by a fence or hedge and the true owner had no access to the disputed land. In 1967 the Defendants’ predecessors in title began to maintain the land by mowing the grass and trimming the hedges and . .
CitedPowell v McFarlane ChD 1977
A squatter had occupied the land and defended a claim for possession. The court discussed the conditions necessary to establish an intention to possess land adversely to the paper owner.
Held: Slade J said: ‘In the absence of evidence to the . .
CitedRiyad Bank and others v Ahli United Bank (Uk) Plc CA 23-Nov-2005
A renewed application for leave to appeal was made as regards a valuation element of the judgment. New expert evidence was sought to be admitted.
Held: Leave was refused: ‘the Court of Appeal should be particularly cautious where what is . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 February 2021; Ref: scu.249954

Generay Ltd v Containerised Storage Company Ltd: CA 23 Mar 2005

Peter Gibson, Neuberger LJJ, Sir Martin Nourse
[2005] EWCA Civ 478
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedChambers v London Borough of Havering CA 20-Dec-2011
chambers-HaveringCA2011
The defendant appealed against an order for him to surrender possession of land he had claimed by adverse possession. The Council was the registered proprietor. The defendant said he had used the land since 1981 for dumping of motor vehicle parts. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 January 2021; Ref: scu.224775

Morris and Others v Godiva Mortgages Limited and Another (Charges and Charging Orders : Fraud, Forgery and Undue Influence/Duress): LRA 11 Jan 2016

LRA Sale and lease back of their home by the applicants to the second respondent – the applicants allege that the transfer and the lease are a nullity as they were forged on behalf of the second respondent – alternatively, the applicants allege that the transfer and the lease should be set aside as they were induced to enter into them by a fraudulent representation made on behalf of the second respondent.
[2016] EWLandRA 2012 – 0953
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 16 January 2021; Ref: scu.564460

Valentine v Allen and others: CA 4 Jul 2003

There was a claim in trespass arising from mistakes arising on the setting up of a small residential development. An easement necessary to the enjoyment of the plots sold off, was required over land no longer owned by the grantor at the time of the apparent grant.
Held: The circumstances were not such as to allow an equitable easement to arise, and nor by any estoppel. He had stood by while, for example a garage had been built across the path of the purported easement. Appeal dismissed.
Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Lord Justice Chadwick And Lady Justice Hale
[2003] EWCA Civ 915
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedAmalgamated Investment and Property Co Ltd (in Liq) v Texas Commerce International Bank Ltd CA 1982
The court explained the nature of an estoppel by convention.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘The doctrine of estoppel is one of the most flexible and useful in the armoury of the law. But it has become overloaded with cases. That is why I have not gone . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 January 2021; Ref: scu.184265

Rodney District Council and others v Attorney General: PC 7 Oct 2002

(New Zealand) The appeal concerned the rating of properties. Where two properties were held under the same land certificates, was this enough to have require only one listing on the valuation roll. New Zealand uses the Torrens style of Land Registration, under which, it was argued, the unit of registration determined also entries for ‘separate properties’. This has its origin in Scots law. The authorities contended that the test was rather the unit of occupation.
Held: The expression ‘separate property’ was not defined. It was to be interpreted within the context in which it was used. In this case that meant rating, not land law, and it was dangerous to bring forward meanings for wordings from earlier statutes. Separate occupation was the correct criterion.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough
[2002]UKPC 47, [2003] RA 180
Bailii, PC
Rating Valuations Act 1998
England and Wales

Updated: 09 January 2021; Ref: scu.177998

Best v The Chief Land Registrar and Another: Admn 7 May 2014

The court was asked whether the criminalising of trespass to land in the 2012 Act had altered the running of time in applications for registration of title to land by adverse possession.
Ouseley J
[2014] EWHC 1370 (Admin), [2014] WLR(D) 211
Bailii, WLRD
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, Land Registration Act 2002
England and Wales

Updated: 07 January 2021; Ref: scu.525071

Clark and Another v Chief Land Registrar and Another: ChD 2 Dec 1992

The defendant had made a mistake resulting in an equitable chargee not being given proper opportunity to object to the registration of a further charge with priority. The chargee sought compensation from the defendant registrar.
Held: The registration of a charge is not to be defeated by a minor error – compensation payable. The 1925 Act is an Act of exceptionally low quality.
Ferris J
Gazette 02-Dec-1992, [1994] Ch 370, [1992] EWHC 1 (Ch), [1993] 2 All ER 936, [1993] Fam Law 579, [1993] 2 FLR 500, (1993) 65 P and CR 186, [1993] 2 WLR 141
Bailii
Land Registration Act 1925 75, Land Registration Rules 1925 218, Charging Orders Act 1979 2(1)
Citing:
CitedIrani Finance Ltd v Singh CA 1970
Two brothers had acquired land as joint tenants with the aid of a mortgage. Distinct orders were made against each of them charging their respective interests in the land. The mortgagee assigned the mortgage. The brothers held under a trust for . .
[1971] Ch 59, [1970] 3 All ER 199
CitedParkash v Irani Finance Ltd ChD 1970
A search by an intending chargee had not revealed the existence of a caution on the register which protected a charging order. When the chargee attempted to register the charge, the cautioner was informed. It objected to the registration.
[1970] Ch 101
CitedNational Westminster Bank Ltd v Allen ChD 1971
The defendants, a husband and wife, were jointly and severally liable on two joint accounts which were overdrawn. The defendants were joint owners of a house property as joint tenants holding on trust for sale. The plaintiff was seeking a charging . .
[1971] 2 QB 718

Cited by:
Appeal fromClark and Another v Chief Land Registrar and Another; Chancery Plc v Ketteringham CA 5-May-1994
A caution gives a right to be notified of an application, but does not give any priority on registration. . .
Ind Summary 13-Jun-94, Times 10-May-94, [1994] EWCA Civ 12, [1994] Ch 370, [1994] 4 All ER 96, [1995] 1 FLR 212, [1995] Fam Law 132, [1994] 3 WLR 593
CitedGold Harp Properties Ltd v Macleod and Others CA 29-Jul-2014
gold_harp_macleodCA1407
The company appealed against an order re-instating to the register leases which the company said it had forfeited for non-payment of rent. After the forfeiture, the landlord had granted new leases. It appealed saying that exceptional circumstances . .
[2014] EWCA Civ 1084, [2014] WLR(D) 345

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 December 2020; Ref: scu.79180

Central London Commercial Estates Ltd v Kato Kagaku Ltd and Another, Axa Equity and Law Assurance Society Plc (Third Party): ChD 15 Jul 1998

Where a squatter had acquired adverse possession rights against lessee, but had not yet applied for registration, a surrender of the registered leasehold did not defeat his claim but operated as acquisition of lessee’s rights.
The court was asked ‘whether, after more than 12 years’ adverse possession by a trespasser, the registered leaseholder of land can, by surrendering the remainder of his term to the freeholder, give the latter a right to immediate possession against the erstwhile squatter. In relation to unregistered land the answer, on House of Lords’ authority, is yes. The issue is whether the provisions of the Land Registration Act 1925, centrally section 75, produce a different outcome in registered conveyancing.’
Held: Where a squatter had acquired adverse possession rights against lessee, but had not yet applied for registration, a surrender of the registered leasehold did not defeat his claim but operated as acquisition of lessee’s rights.
Sedley J
Times 27-Jul-1998, Gazette 22-Jul-1998, Gazette 30-Sep-1998, [1998] EWHC Ch 314, [1998] EGCS 117, [1998] 4 All ER 948, [1998] 3 EGLR 55, [1998] 46 EG 185
Bailii
Land Registration Act 1925 7(1)
England and Wales

Updated: 17 December 2020; Ref: scu.78953

Collings v Lee: CA 2001

The claimants asked the defendant to find a purchaser for their house for a fee. Pretending to be a purchaser under an assumed name, he obtained from them the documents necessary to register the transfer, and received a further payment towards the deposit on a new house. He was registered as proprietor, and obtained a substantial advance on a first charge to a building society. He was later convicted of fraud. C, still in possession, received no money for the sale of their house, and none of the other payments was returned. In a dispute between the Collings and the Building Society, the issue was whether their interest was ‘an overriding interest’ as that of a ‘person in actual occupation’. The Society, relying on Lonrho and Twinsectra argued, ‘ . . that the transfer of the property to the first defendant was not void, but voidable by Mr and Mrs Collings; that unless and until they avoided it they had no subsisting equitable interest in the property, their right to avoid it being a ‘mere equity’; and that such a right does not fall within s 70(1)(g).’
Held: The argument was rejected: ‘The rationale of the principle, as it applies to a transfer of property, is that even where the transfer is obtained by fraudulent misrepresentation, the transferor nevertheless intends that the whole legal and beneficial ownership in the property shall pass to the transferee. But that was not this case. Mr and Mrs Collings did not intend to transfer the property to the first defendant and they did not intend to transfer it for no consideration. The first defendant acquired the property without their knowledge and consent and in breach of his fiduciary duty to them. The equitable interest remained vested in Mr and Mrs Collings.’
Nourse LJ
[2001] 2 All ER
Land Registration Act 1925 70)1)(g)
England and Wales

Updated: 09 December 2020; Ref: scu.188812

Brown and Root v Sun Alliance: CA 2001

Until there has been a transfer in accordance with the provisions of the Land Registration Act the legal title to the estate remains with the vendor
[2001] Chancery Ch 733
England and Wales
Citing:

  • See Also – Brown and Root Technology Ltd and Another v Sun Alliance and London Assurance Comp Ltd CA 19-Dec-1996
    The claimant had a personal right to exercise a break clause in a lease of which it was the registered proprietor, that right coming to an end when it assigned the lease. The lease was assigned to another company within the group which took over . .
    Gazette 19-Feb-97, Times 27-Jan-97, [1996] EWCA Civ 1261, (1996) 75 P and C R 223, [2001] Ch 733

Cited by:

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 December 2020; Ref: scu.242992

NRAM Ltd v Evans and Others: CA 19 Jul 2017

Appeal from order directing re-registration of charge over registered land.
Held: It was not a mistake to register a voidable disposition before it was avoided.
The court cited with approval the views of the editors of Megarry and Wade: ‘ ‘Mistake’ is not itself specifically defined in the 2002 Act, but it is suggested that there will be a mistake whenever the Registrar (i) makes an entry in the register that he would not have made; (ii) makes an entry in the register that he would not have made in the form in which it was made; (iii) fails to make an entry in the register which he would otherwise have made; or (iv) deletes an entry which he would not have deleted; had he known the true state of affairs at the time of the entry or deletion. The mistake may consist of a mistaken entry in the register or the mistaken omission of an entry which should have been made. Whether an entry in the register is mistaken depends upon its effect at the time of registration . . . ‘
References: [2017] EWCA Civ 1013, [2017] WLR(D) 491
Links: Bailii, WLRD
Judges: Kitchin, David Richards, Henderson LJJ
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.591188

Paige v Webb: CA 26 Jul 2001

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.
References: [2001] EWCA Civ 1220
Judges: Lord Justice Laws, Lord Justice Mummery, Sir Anthony Evans
Statutes: Land Registration Act 1925 110(2)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • Cited – Singh v Nazeer 1979
    Once an order for specific performance has been made by the court, the parties have put it into the hands of the court as to how the contract is to be carried out. The provisions of the order regulate how the contract is to be carried out. The . .
    ([1979] Ch 474)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.159907

Smith v Express Dairy Limited: ChD 1954

Express Dairy (as registered owner) let a shop to Smith, but then transferred its interest to a subsidiary company. The subsidiary did not become registered as owner but nonetheless served notice to quit on Smith.
Held: Unless the subsidiary could be treated as having given notice to quit as agent of Express Dairy the notice to quit was bad, because the reversion remained vested in Express Dairy.
References: [1954] JPL 45
Judges: Harman J
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Stodday Land Ltd and Another v Pye ChD 7-Oct-2016
    The agricultural landlord sold part of his land subject to the respondent’s tenancy to the appellant. Before the transfer was registered, notices to quit were served by both the landlord and his buyer. The tenant challenged both notices in the . .
    (, [2016] EWHC 2454 (Ch), [2016] WLR(D) 519, )

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.570350

Elias v Mitchell: 1972

A caution against dealings can only be registered to protect some form of interest in land
References: [1972] Ch 652
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Kastner v Jason, Sherman, Sherman and Sherman, Sherman and Kastner ChD 23-Mar-2004
    The parties had a dispute arbitrated by the Beth Din, who ordered the sale of a property. In apparent breach of that order the owner purported to sell the property. The claimant had registered a caution which the defendants now sought to be vacated. . .
    ([2004] EWHC 592 Ch, , Times 26-Apr-04)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.196026

Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions v Baylis (Gloucester) Ltd; Bennett Construction (UK) Ltd v Baylis (Gloucester) Ltd: ChD 16 May 2000

Land once conveyed for the purposes of becoming a highway, became dedicated for that purpose even though no steps were ever taken for its use for that purpose. The registration of a company as proprietor by the Land Registry did not displace the dedication since the interest was an over-riding one under the Act.
References: Times 16-May-2000, Gazette 31-May-2000
Statutes: Land Registration Act 1925, Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989
This case is cited by:

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.89097

Overseas Investment Services Ltd v Simcobuild Construction Ltd and Another: CA 21 Apr 1995

Grant of s38 rights in a Highways agreement didn’t operate as grant of future public rights of way, nor create an overriding interest.
References: Ind Summary 12-Jun-1995, Times 21-Apr-1995
Statutes: Highways Act 1980 38(3)(b), Land Registration Act 1925 70(1)(a)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.84497

Overseas Investment Services Ltd v Simcobuild Construction Ltd and Another: ChD 2 Nov 1993

A section 38 agreement was an overriding interest, and created a public right which was binding on purchaser.
References: Times 02-Nov-1993
Statutes: Land Registration Act 1925 70(1)(a)
This case is cited by:

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.84498

Oceanic Village Ltd v United Attractions Ltd, Shirayama: ChD 9 Dec 1999

The tenant sought an injunction against its neighbour and landlord to prevent it letting an adjoining property without a restriction similar to the one in its own lease. The claimants sought reassurance from the defendant tenants of the adjoining propery that they would act in accordance with the retriction, but no re-assurance was given.
Held: The claimants were prevented under the 1925 Act from registering a notice, and the defendants took the lease with notice of the restriction. However, the words ‘any demised premises’ in the 1995 Act referred to the premises demised by the particular lease in question, and not to any other premises demised by the landlord. Having granted a lease of part to the claimant covenanting not to allow any other part to be used as a gift shop, the landlord demised another part to the first defendant without incorporating a similar restriction. The landlords were not to be injuncted not to do something which they would not themselves be doing, but which would be done by another tenant. No notice was registerable.
Neuberger J: ‘In my judgment, while it is right to take into account the fact that the draftsman of the lease has departed from, or has omitted part of, a well-established form of words, that will not, at least on its own, normally be a sufficient reason for not giving the words he has used the natural meaning which they would otherwise bear. The fact that the draftsman has used a different form of words in relation to two provisions of a lease concerned with the same concept, in this case the use to which land is not to be put, is also something which should be taken into account when construing either of those provisions, but, again, I do not consider that it should normally justify departing from the natural meaning of either provision.
While it is appropriate for the court to contrast a provision which falls to be construed with a well-established form of words or with the way in which another provision in the lease is drafted, it is also right for the court to bear in mind the way that leases are drafted in practice. It is well known that draftsmen of leases will frequently use many expressions where one will do – see eg per Hoffmann J in Norwich Union Life Insurance Society v British Railways Board [1987] 2 EGLR 137 at 138 and in Tea Trade Properties Ltd v CIN Properties Ltd [1990] 1 EGLR 155 at 158. Furthermore, draftsmen may take the wording of different clauses from different precedents and different clauses may come from different hands.’
References: Times 19-Jan-2000, [2000] 1 All ER 975, [2000] Ch 234
Judges: Neuberger J
Statutes: Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 3(5), Land Registration Act 1925 50(1)
This case cites:

  • Cited – Darstone Ltd v Cleveland Petroleum Co Ltd 1969
    . .
    ([1969] 1 WLR 1807)
  • Cited – Norwich Union Life Insurance v British Railways Board 1987
    The court made reference to the ‘torrential style of drafting which has been traditional for many years’ among draftsmen of covenants in leases. ‘The use of ordinary language to convey meaning often involves subtle discriminations which for most . .
    ([1987] 2 EGLR 137)
  • Cited – Tea Trade Properties Ltd v CIN Properties Ltd ChD 1990
    It is not unusual for conveyances to say the same thing twice: ‘… I have never found the presumption against superfluous language particularly useful in the construction of leases. The draftsmen traditionally employ linguistic overkill and try to . .
    ([1990] 1 EGLR 150)

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Morrells of Oxford Ltd v Oxford United Football Club Ltd and Others CA 21-Jul-2000
    A covenant on the sale of land for a public house provided that the vendor should not permit the building of licensed premises within half a mile.
    Held: The covenant operated personally only. The covenants which might be implied by the section . .
    (Times 15-Aug-00, Gazette 31-Aug-00, , [2000] EWCA Civ 226, [2001] Ch 459)
  • Cited – Ranson v Ranson CA 13-Dec-2001
    There had been protracted ancillary relief litigation between the parties resulting in a final order. Part of the order related to property, but the husband asserted that he was incapable of conveying the property since, because of title . .
    (, [2001] EWCA Civ 1929)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.84420

Mohammed Khurshid Khan: SSC 9 Mar 1994

A notice of deposit which had been lodged at the Land Registry was capable of being an encumbrance on the land for benefits law purposes, despite it not being a formal charge on the land under land law. Capital disregard is for fixed period, the onus to justify discharge lay on Adjudication Officer.
References: Gazette 09-Mar-1994, CIS/255/89

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.83792

Baker and Another v Craggs: CA 16 May 2018

‘The novel issue raised by this appeal is whether the doctrine of overreaching in section 2(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 (‘LPA 1925′) is capable of operating in circumstances where the conveyance to a purchaser which is alleged to have the overreaching effect is the grant of an easement over land, and the equitable interest which is said to be overreached is not an interest in the easement itself, or even in the land conveyed to the purchaser with the benefit of the easement, but an interest in the servient tenement which the common vendor has previously contracted to sell to a third party, and which (following completion of that sale) the vendor holds as a bare trustee for the third party pending registration of his title with HM Land Registry.’
References: [2018] EWCA Civ 1126, [2018] WLR(D) 299
Links: Bailii, WLRD
Statutes: Law of Property Act 1925 2(1)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.616320

Arnold v Mann, Mann, Daniel, Daniel, Brooks, Quittelier, Scanlan: LRA 22 Mar 2018

Adverse possession claim in respect of one end of a service road, which was then unregistered land and not highway. Held that the Applicant had failed to demonstrate factual possession prior to resurfacing and effective enclosure in 2016. Previous acts were equivocal and almost all consistent with exercise of rights of way and parking. The acts were also insufficiently overt and did not demonstrate the necessary intention to possess.
References: [2018] UKFTT 210 (PC)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.616310