Land Law Cases

Key Points of the Case: • Proprietary Character of Rights: The case established a foundational approach to determining if a right has a proprietary character. • Lord Wilberforce’s Four-Fold Test: To establish an interest in land, the right must meet the following criteria: 1. Definable: The right must be clearly defined. 2.

1. Facts • The Fleggs, a couple, lived together with their daughter and son-in-law in a house that they all purchased together. • The Fleggs contributed financially to the purchase, but the daughter and son-in-law were registered as the trustees of the legal estate (legal owners). • Due to financial difficulties, the daughter

1. Facts • The Dyche parents sold their house to their daughter (Dyches) for a significantly low price of £25,000 after declaring bankruptcy. • An agreement was made that the parents would continue to live in the property and meet the mortgage payments. • Once the mortgage was repaid, the property would

Key Points of the Case: • Definition of Actual Occupation: Lewison J emphasised that the term “actual” stresses the requirement for physical presence on the property. • Agreement with Boland: Lewison J agreed with the definition of actual occupation established in Williams & Glyn’s Bank v Boland [1981], where physical presence is

1. Facts • Mrs. Scott (the defendant) planned to sell her house under the agreement that she could continue living there indefinitely at a discounted rate. • The purchaser obtained a mortgage from Southern Pacific Mortgages (SPM), but later defaulted on the mortgage. • SPM (the claimant) sought possession of the property, while

Key Points of the Case: • Discount on Purchase Price: B was entitled to a discount on the purchase price of a property. • Impact on Co-owner: This right to a discount also affected the co-owner, integrating it into B’s direct contribution to the property. • Direct Contribution: The case considered this

Key Points of the Case: • Third Category of Interest: The case explores the possibility of a third category for acquiring an interest in land. This category includes contributions that add something permanent to the land or substantially increase its value. • Types of Contributions: For instance, paying for major building work

Key Points of the Case: • Permanence and Continuity: Lord Oliver emphasised that a mere “fleeting presence” is insufficient to establish actual occupation. There must be a degree of permanence and continuity. • Nature and Purpose of Property: The determination of actual occupation must consider “the nature and purpose of the property”

1. Facts • In this case, the court upheld that Mrs. Bustard was in actual occupation (AO) of her property, even though she had been hospitalised for the past six weeks and had not been physically present at the property for an extended period. • Despite her absence, she had left personal

Key Points of the Case: • Physical Presence and Intention: Ramsey J endorsed the approach of Mummery J in Link Lending. • Demonstration of Actual Occupation: It was held that Ms. Thomas was in actual occupation of the property even though it was being renovated at the time of the disposition. • Alignment

1. Facts • A mother (M) purchased a house and conditionally gifted it to her daughter (D), giving D a proprietary right in the property. • M considered using the house as security for a loan and subsequently defaulted on the mortgage. • The lender sought to sell the house to recover its

1. Facts • The property in question was a block of flats that had become derelict and unsaleable. • The building was being used for temporary storage. • The claimant, Malory Enterprises, established that someone was in actual occupation (AO) of the property. • To maintain security and prevent intruders, a fence was erected

Key Points of the Case: • Actual Occupation through an Agent: Actual occupation can be established through occupation by an agent. In this case, the presence of a builder renovating the property was sufficient to prove actual occupation. • Nicholls LJ’s Test: Whether occupation by an employee or agent is adequate depends

1. Facts • The case involved a dispute over the actual occupation (AO) of a property in England. • The claimant (C) had previously lived in the property but moved to Barbados, only returning to England occasionally. • The issue arose in the context of the property’s security and the claimant’s rights

1. Facts • The defendant (D) purchased a property adjacent to that of the claimant (C). • The only access to C’s property was through D’s stairs. • C had an equitable right in rem, which raised the issue of whether C could be prevented from using the stairs. 2. Outcome • The

Key Points of the Case: • Contradictory View: The Court of Appeal in this case held a view contrary to Chaudhury v Yavuz. • Easement as Actual Occupation: It was determined that a right to park under an easement could amount to actual occupation, establishing an overriding interest.

Key Points of the Case: • Occupancy on Behalf of Another: A person can create an overriding interest if they occupy land on behalf of another person, establishing a proprietary right. • Own Account Occupancy: In this case, the stepdaughter was occupying the land on her own account, not on behalf of

1. Facts • The defendant (D) allowed the claimant (C) to keep his car in a garage. • C had an equitable right in rem, including a right of first refusal to purchase the lease on the garage, but did not register this right. • D sold the garage to a third party,

Key Points of the Cases: • Context: Both cases involve the application of the concept of Actual Occupation (AO) in the context of commercial properties. • Application to Commercial Property: ◦ London & Cheshire Insurance v Ferrishurst Ltd (1971): Established the principle that AO can apply to commercial properties such as shops and factories.

Key Points of the Case: • Context: The case involved determining the status of interests related to property ownership and occupation. • Nourse LJ’s Ruling: Nourse LJ described certain interests as “shadows of occupation” of their parents, highlighting the limited and often challenging nature of verifying these interests, especially when dealing with

1. Facts • Mr. Boland (Mr. B) was the sole registered title holder of a house. • Mrs. Boland (Mrs. B) contributed to the purchase price of the house, establishing a beneficial entitlement. • Mr. B subsequently took out a second mortgage on the house without Mrs. B’s consent. • Upon defaulting on the

1. Facts • Mr. Chhokar (Mr. C) was the sole registered title-holder of the property. • Mrs. Chhokar (Mrs. C) contributed to the purchase price and continued to live in the property. • The marriage fell apart, and Mrs. C stayed in the property. • While Mrs. C was hospitalised after giving birth, Mr.

1. Facts • A purchaser (disponee) inquired about the wife’s property rights during an Eid celebration. • The wife responded that it was not the appropriate time to discuss such matters. • The purchaser proceeded to buy the house without further inquiry. • The issue arose whether the wife had an overriding interest

Key Points of the Case: • Context: Mr. and Mrs. Henning purchased a house with the mortgage solely in Mr. Henning’s name. • Default and Possession: After defaulting on the mortgage, the lender sought possession of the property. • Mrs. Henning’s Claim: Mrs. Henning asserted an overriding interest in the property. • Outcome: Her

Key Points of the Case: • Overreaching Defence: Although the claimant (C) could rely on the overreaching defence, the courts discussed an alternative approach. • Unreasonable Failure to Disclose: The case considered whether unreasonable failure to disclose rights under Schedule 3, Paragraph 2(b) of the Land Registration Act 2002 could impact

Key Points of the Case: • Lord Fry’s Principles: 1. Mistake of Legal Rights: The claimant (C) must have been mistaken about their legal rights over land that belongs to another. 2. Knowledge of Mistake: The landowner must be aware of the claimant’s mistake regarding their legal rights. 3.

Key Points of the Case: • Requirements for a Successful PE Claim: 1. Promise or Assurance: There must be a promise or assurance made by the defendant (D) to the claimant (C). This promise can be either express or implied and must relate to some right or interest in the defendant’s

1. Facts • David Thorner (C) worked on Peter Major’s (D) farm for nearly 30 years without payment. • C was led to believe he would inherit Peter’s land. • Following a falling out, C did not inherit the estate. • C argued that there was an implied agreement that he would inherit

Key Points of the Case: • Background: This case involved a dispute concerning the doctrine of promissory estoppel (PE), rather than proprietary estoppel. • Claim: The claimant argued that they should be estopped from denying a promise based on the doctrine of promissory estoppel, which prevents a party from going back on

1. Facts • Mr. Crabb (C) intended to split his land into two plots to sell one to a third party. • To facilitate this, he needed a right of way across the adjacent land. • Although there was never a formal contract, D constructed a wooden fence on the boundary between the

1. Facts • Background: David Gillet (C) worked on the farm owned by Robert Holt (D) for many years. • Assurance: D assured C that he would inherit the farm if he abandoned his plans to attend college and worked on the farm instead. • Change in Circumstances: After working on the farm

1. Facts • Agreement: C (Cobbe) and D (Yeoman’s Row Ltd) agreed verbally that C would purchase D’s land, demolish the existing flats, and redevelop the site into individual houses to be sold, with profits shared between them. • Actions Taken: C relied on this informal agreement by securing planning

1. Facts • Background: JT Development Ltd (C) and Quinn (D) were involved in negotiations regarding a contract for the use of land. • Negotiations: Although there were discussions and attempts to create a formal contract, no binding agreement was reached. • Issue: The core issue was whether an assurance could still be

Key Points of the Case: • Background: The case involved a dispute over proprietary estoppel (PE) related to the nature of an informal agreement between parties. • Claim: The claimant sought to establish a PE claim based on an alleged assurance regarding property rights. • Outcome: The court found that the fluid and

1. Facts • Background: Kinane (C) provided a loan to a borrower (D) who agreed by letter to charge his land as security for the loan. • Issue: The borrower failed to repay the loan, leading Kinane to seek enforcement of the security. However, it was argued that the written instrument did

Key Points of the Case: • Background: This case involved the application of proprietary estoppel (PE) following the transfer of land. • Claim: The claimant sought to enforce a right based on an informal agreement, despite the absence of a written contract. • Outcome: The court upheld the claim, establishing that PE could

1. Facts • Background: Greasley (C), a maid, moved in with Cooke (D) and D’s sister. Greasley developed a romantic relationship with D. When D’s sister became gravely ill, Greasley began caring for her. • Promise: D promised Greasley a home for life in gratitude for her care. • Issue: After D’

1. Facts • Background: Wayling (C) worked for Jones (D) in a hotel business. They were involved in a romantic relationship during which Jones promised Wayling that he would inherit a hotel. • Issue: Jones later did not fulfil the promise, leading Wayling to sue for reliance on the promise. Wayling claimed

1. Facts • Background: Campbell (C) claimed promissory estoppel (PE) based on an assurance from Griffin (D) related to the management of certain properties. C admitted that his assistance to the landlords was driven more by compassion than by reliance on the promise. • Issue: The central question was whether PE could

Key Points of the Case: • Background: This case involved a dispute where reliance on a promise was a central issue. • Claim: The claimant argued that they had incurred detriment based on reliance on certain assurances. • Outcome: The court ruled that there would be no reliance under proprietary estoppel if the

Key Points of the Case: • Background: Miss Chan left her family and gave up her career to live with the landowner and start a business together. • Claim: Miss Chan sought a share in the business under proprietary estoppel, arguing that her significant personal and professional sacrifices were made in reliance

1. Facts • Background: Taylor (C) worked for a long time without payment, expecting to inherit from the deceased, Dickens (D). C’s work was motivated by the belief that he would eventually receive an inheritance. However, the deceased later changed the will, favouring other beneficiaries. • Issue: The issue was whether

1. Facts • Background: Henry (C) took care of his grandmother for many years with the assurance that he would inherit a half share of her land in St. Lucia. Despite this, he was excluded from the will, and the land was bequeathed to other parties. • Issue: The central issue was

1. Facts • Background: Jennings (J) gave up his role as a gardener and worked unpaid as a carer for Mrs. Royle. In return, Mrs. Royle promised to leave him her property in her will. However, Mrs. Royle did not make a will before her death. • Claims: 1. Claim 1: J

1. Facts • Background: Ottey (C) was promised a houseboat valued between £240,000 and £250,000, along with an apartment. The promise was not formalised in a will or contract, and the promisor (Grundy) died before these formalities were completed. • Claim: C sought to enforce the promise, arguing that the

1. Facts • Background: The case involved a claim where Davies (C) sought to enforce a promise for inheritance and financial support. The claim was influenced by significant reliance on the promise, which included considerable work and personal sacrifice. • Claim: C originally sought £1.3 million but was awarded a reduced

1. Facts • David Guest owned a farm and promised his son, Andrew, that he would inherit it. • Andrew worked on the farm for 30 years, receiving little pay despite being able to earn significantly more elsewhere. • After a family fallout, David and his wife changed their will and decided not

Key Points of the Case: • Issue at Hand: The case addressed how to quantify remedies in proprietary estoppel claims, particularly in determining the appropriate award for the claimant. • Decision: The court chose not to follow the approach established in Guest v Guest. Instead, the minority opinion advocated for calculating the

1. Facts • Background: Sabherwal (S) lived in a house with her two sons. The legal title to the property was held by the sons. When S defaulted on mortgages, the sons decided to sell the property to a third party. • Claim: S claimed an interest in the property based on

1. Facts • Background: The case involved Mortgage Express (C) seeking to enforce a mortgage on a property against Lambert (D). Lambert claimed an equity arising from a right to rescind a contract related to the land in question. • Claim: Lambert argued that his equity, arising from the right to rescind