Case Law for Exam
England and Wales
o Dearle v. Hall [1828] 3 Russ 1
o Tulk v. Moxhay [1848] 2 Ph 774
o Rylands v. Fletcher [1866] LR 1 Ex 265
o Lysaght v. Edwards [1876] 2 Ch D 499
o Rosenberg v. Cook [1881] LR 8 QBD 162
o Re Ellenborough Park [1956] Ch 131
o National Provincial Bank v. Ainsworth [1965] AC 1175
o Liverpool City Council v. Irwin [1977] AC 239
o Bernstein of Leigh (Baron) v. Skyviews & General Ltd [1978] QB 479
o Re Goldcorp Exchange Ltd (in receivership) [1995] 1 AC 74
o Agnew and Another v Commissioner of Inland Revenue (Brumark) [2001] 3 WLR 454
Dearle v. Hall [1828] 3 Russ 1
o Pages 383-384 book
o Notice requirement for assignment – assignment of beneficial interest
o A complete property right, title, can be held on a chose in action. The rules of
personal property law apply as much as possible.
Facts:
o Brown, a beneficiary, assigned his interest by way of security first to Dearle and then
to Sherring
o The trustees were NOT given notice of the assignments
o Some years later, brown assigned his interest to Hall
o Before purchasing the interest, Hall made enquiries with the trustees and they
indicated that the interest was unburdened
o Hall gave the trustees notice of his assignment
o Subsequently, Dearle and Sherring gave the trustees notice of their assignment
Held:
o Hall had received title to the beneficial interest
o This title is a full property interest to which the rules of personal property law must
apply whenever possible
Tulk v Moxhay [1848] EWHC J34
o Pages 331-332 book
o Restrictive covenant property rights: a covenant restrictive of the user of land is
capable of binding strangers to its creation
Facts:
o In 1808, Tulk, the owner of several parcels of land in Leicester Square sold a fee
simple title to a plot of land to one Elms.
o Elms covenanted with the plaintiff to keep Garden Square “uncovered with buildings”
such that it would remain a pleasure ground
, o Overtime, the land was sold several times over, eventually to the defendant, who
bought WITH KNOWLEDGE of the covenant
o Proposed to build on the land, and the plaintiff who still retained title to several
houses in the square sought an injunction (equitable remedy)
o Defendant: covenant did not run with the land, with the consequence that it bound
only the original covenantor, and although he knew of the covenant, he argued it was
not enough to make him bound (privity of contract)
o ‘run with the land’ – Keppel v Bailey (1834) 2 My & K 517
Held:
o The injunction claim should be granted
o The covenant had been intended to run with the land at the time it was made, and all
subsequent purchasers had been informed of its existence
o This case stands for the proposition that a vertical (landlord-tenant) relation (privity of
estate) is not needed for the burden of a covenant to run at equity
The relevance of this decision decreased with the introduction of the 1925 Land Registration
Act which made such covenants a registrable interest
Rylands v Fletcher [1866] LR 1 Ex 265
o Page 175 book
o Provides for a special strict liability tort for hazardous activities
o Covers primarily damage to the land itself and to other property on the land
Facts:
o In Rylands v Fletcher, the defendants employed independent contractors to construct a
reservoir on their land.
o The contractors found disused mines when digging but failed to seal them properly.
o They filled the reservoir with water.
o As a result, water flooded through the mineshafts into the plaintiff’s mines on the
adjoining property.
Held:
o The Court of Exchequer Chamber held the defendant liable and the House of Lords
affirmed their decision.
Liability requires:
o A non-natural use of the land by the tortfeasor
o A dangerous thing or substance
o The escape of this thing or substance onto the land of another
o Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Countries Leather – also requires foreseeability
of damage
Lysaght v. Edwards [1876] 2 Ch D 499
o Pages 339-341
o Estate contracts are property rights
, o Contract to sell fee simple title: a contract to sell a title to land gives to the purchaser
the benefit of a trust of the title before conveyance
Facts:
o A testator, who held a title to several parcels of land, both outright and as a trustee,
had before his death entered into a contract to sell one of the titles he held outright
o He died before conveyance was executed
o By his will, left titles he held outright to Hubbard and Muller jointly, and those held
on trust to Hubbard alone
Issue:
o For the purpose of the execution of the conveyance, it was necessary to know who
now held the title contracted to be sold
o Had it passed to Hubbard and Muller jointly, or to Hubbard alone?
o Depended on whether the vendor was a trustee of the title at the time of his death.
o Such a trust only arose once a degree of specific performance had been granted,
which was not the case here.
Held:
o The vendor was a trustee at the time of his death. A contract to sell a title to land gives
to the purchaser the benefit of a trust of the title before conveyance.
o The proprietary effect of an estate contract is not limited to contracts to purchase
freehold titles. Contracts for the purchase of other property rights in respect of lad,
such as leases or easements, also have this effect
Rosenberg v. Cook [1881] LR 8 QBD 162
o Pages 308-309
o Possession as a root of title: the mere taking of possession of land gives the possessor
a fee simple estate over that land
Facts:
o A railway company has a power to sell ‘superfluous’ land
o Previous case: the land over a railway tunnel was not superfluous land, and companies
had no power to sell it
o A railway company purported to convey title to such a plot of land to the defendant,
who in turn contracted to sell it to the plaintiff
o Terms of contract
o Title should commence with the conveyance from the railway company
o The purchaser should not require the production of, or investigate or make any
objection or requisition in respect of such conveyance
o The purchaser should send his objection, if any, to the title within seven days
from the delivery of abstract
o The plaintiff declined to complete after the expiration of seven days from the delivery,
and sued for the return of his deposit
Held:
o Court of appeal held that the deposit could not be recovered
England and Wales
o Dearle v. Hall [1828] 3 Russ 1
o Tulk v. Moxhay [1848] 2 Ph 774
o Rylands v. Fletcher [1866] LR 1 Ex 265
o Lysaght v. Edwards [1876] 2 Ch D 499
o Rosenberg v. Cook [1881] LR 8 QBD 162
o Re Ellenborough Park [1956] Ch 131
o National Provincial Bank v. Ainsworth [1965] AC 1175
o Liverpool City Council v. Irwin [1977] AC 239
o Bernstein of Leigh (Baron) v. Skyviews & General Ltd [1978] QB 479
o Re Goldcorp Exchange Ltd (in receivership) [1995] 1 AC 74
o Agnew and Another v Commissioner of Inland Revenue (Brumark) [2001] 3 WLR 454
Dearle v. Hall [1828] 3 Russ 1
o Pages 383-384 book
o Notice requirement for assignment – assignment of beneficial interest
o A complete property right, title, can be held on a chose in action. The rules of
personal property law apply as much as possible.
Facts:
o Brown, a beneficiary, assigned his interest by way of security first to Dearle and then
to Sherring
o The trustees were NOT given notice of the assignments
o Some years later, brown assigned his interest to Hall
o Before purchasing the interest, Hall made enquiries with the trustees and they
indicated that the interest was unburdened
o Hall gave the trustees notice of his assignment
o Subsequently, Dearle and Sherring gave the trustees notice of their assignment
Held:
o Hall had received title to the beneficial interest
o This title is a full property interest to which the rules of personal property law must
apply whenever possible
Tulk v Moxhay [1848] EWHC J34
o Pages 331-332 book
o Restrictive covenant property rights: a covenant restrictive of the user of land is
capable of binding strangers to its creation
Facts:
o In 1808, Tulk, the owner of several parcels of land in Leicester Square sold a fee
simple title to a plot of land to one Elms.
o Elms covenanted with the plaintiff to keep Garden Square “uncovered with buildings”
such that it would remain a pleasure ground
, o Overtime, the land was sold several times over, eventually to the defendant, who
bought WITH KNOWLEDGE of the covenant
o Proposed to build on the land, and the plaintiff who still retained title to several
houses in the square sought an injunction (equitable remedy)
o Defendant: covenant did not run with the land, with the consequence that it bound
only the original covenantor, and although he knew of the covenant, he argued it was
not enough to make him bound (privity of contract)
o ‘run with the land’ – Keppel v Bailey (1834) 2 My & K 517
Held:
o The injunction claim should be granted
o The covenant had been intended to run with the land at the time it was made, and all
subsequent purchasers had been informed of its existence
o This case stands for the proposition that a vertical (landlord-tenant) relation (privity of
estate) is not needed for the burden of a covenant to run at equity
The relevance of this decision decreased with the introduction of the 1925 Land Registration
Act which made such covenants a registrable interest
Rylands v Fletcher [1866] LR 1 Ex 265
o Page 175 book
o Provides for a special strict liability tort for hazardous activities
o Covers primarily damage to the land itself and to other property on the land
Facts:
o In Rylands v Fletcher, the defendants employed independent contractors to construct a
reservoir on their land.
o The contractors found disused mines when digging but failed to seal them properly.
o They filled the reservoir with water.
o As a result, water flooded through the mineshafts into the plaintiff’s mines on the
adjoining property.
Held:
o The Court of Exchequer Chamber held the defendant liable and the House of Lords
affirmed their decision.
Liability requires:
o A non-natural use of the land by the tortfeasor
o A dangerous thing or substance
o The escape of this thing or substance onto the land of another
o Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Countries Leather – also requires foreseeability
of damage
Lysaght v. Edwards [1876] 2 Ch D 499
o Pages 339-341
o Estate contracts are property rights
, o Contract to sell fee simple title: a contract to sell a title to land gives to the purchaser
the benefit of a trust of the title before conveyance
Facts:
o A testator, who held a title to several parcels of land, both outright and as a trustee,
had before his death entered into a contract to sell one of the titles he held outright
o He died before conveyance was executed
o By his will, left titles he held outright to Hubbard and Muller jointly, and those held
on trust to Hubbard alone
Issue:
o For the purpose of the execution of the conveyance, it was necessary to know who
now held the title contracted to be sold
o Had it passed to Hubbard and Muller jointly, or to Hubbard alone?
o Depended on whether the vendor was a trustee of the title at the time of his death.
o Such a trust only arose once a degree of specific performance had been granted,
which was not the case here.
Held:
o The vendor was a trustee at the time of his death. A contract to sell a title to land gives
to the purchaser the benefit of a trust of the title before conveyance.
o The proprietary effect of an estate contract is not limited to contracts to purchase
freehold titles. Contracts for the purchase of other property rights in respect of lad,
such as leases or easements, also have this effect
Rosenberg v. Cook [1881] LR 8 QBD 162
o Pages 308-309
o Possession as a root of title: the mere taking of possession of land gives the possessor
a fee simple estate over that land
Facts:
o A railway company has a power to sell ‘superfluous’ land
o Previous case: the land over a railway tunnel was not superfluous land, and companies
had no power to sell it
o A railway company purported to convey title to such a plot of land to the defendant,
who in turn contracted to sell it to the plaintiff
o Terms of contract
o Title should commence with the conveyance from the railway company
o The purchaser should not require the production of, or investigate or make any
objection or requisition in respect of such conveyance
o The purchaser should send his objection, if any, to the title within seven days
from the delivery of abstract
o The plaintiff declined to complete after the expiration of seven days from the delivery,
and sued for the return of his deposit
Held:
o Court of appeal held that the deposit could not be recovered
