Registered Land (LRA 2002):
- 3 core principles
- Mirror – register should reflect ownership
- Insurance – if this doesn’t happen should be compensation
- Curtain – relates to BIUT
- 2 rules =
- s28 – special rule, normally relates to when land is a gift, relates to chronological order
- 29 – general rule, used when there is a sale, sale for valuable consideration, LRA recognises registered estates such as
freehold and leasehold/registered charges s51 (mortgages) entry of notice - s33 has exclusions, unregistered interests
which override, relates to BIUT. Overreaching – City of London v Flegf
- S132 – valuable consideration is not marriage or nominal money.
Unregistered Land:
Legal interests?- Legal rights bind the world
Equitable interests governed by:
1) LCA 1972 – class A – C = bind purchaser/ C (iv)? Bound for moneys worth, Midland Bank v Green – interprets LCA
strictly
- Entry of notice constitutes actual notice, there is also constructive notice LPA s 198/199
2) Overreaching – s2/27? Pay capital to 2 trustees to overreach the right
- Actual occupation case law – Hodgson v Mark – shared occupation, Chaudhary v Yavuz – continuous, Chhokar v
Chhokar = temporary absence is occupation, Abbey National v Cann = holding on trust is not occupation, Stand
Securities v Caswell – occupation by agent is not occupation, Link lending v bustard = meaning of occupation.
- BIUT overreached? Kingsnorth Finance v Tizard, contribution to purchase price – dyer v dyer
3) bona fide test- determines priority when BIUT not been overreached and when equitable interests not in LCA
Adverse Possession:
1) Factual possession – powell v mcfarlane
2) Intention to possess -buckinghamshire cc v moran
3) Show p is adverse – O v B/J v G/CBC v S
4) Time – unreg land = 12yrs, limitation act, paper owner title estinguished, reg land = LRA 2002 sch 6 para 1/2/6
Write about human rights – JA Pye v Graham
Write about LASPO – s144, best v chief land registrar
Easements:
Re Ellenborough Park Criteria:
1) Has to be a dominant and servient tenement owner
2) Has to accommodate land not people (Moody v Steggles/Hill v Tupper/Bailey v Stephens)
3) D & S owners must be different people
4) Must be a subject matter of a grant
4a) must be grantor and grantee, age 18 and of sound mind
4b) must be in traditional list of easements (Right of way - B v G/washing line – J v M – domestic facilities – W v M,
garden – Re Ellenborough Park, Dalton v Angus – support, Calls v Home colonial stores – light through defined
aperture
4c) right must be definite – wandering – Re Ellenborough
4d) Must not impose positive burden on servient tenenment
4e) reasonable alternative use test – London Blenheim estates v Ladbrook Retail park, Copeland v greenhalf, test
critized by batchelow v marlow, monecrief v jamieson had new test about control of land when using an easement
Aquisiton of easements:
- Express grant or reservation – by deed, expressly stating
- Implied grant or reservation – 4 situations
1) Absolute necessity – nickerson v baraclough 2) common intention – wong v Beaumont properties
3) Wheeldon v burrows/wheeler v jj saunders/kirk v wardland 4) s62 LPA
- Prescription 1) since 1189 – common law 2) doctrine of lost modern grant – lost deed 3) prescription act 1832
- 3 core principles
- Mirror – register should reflect ownership
- Insurance – if this doesn’t happen should be compensation
- Curtain – relates to BIUT
- 2 rules =
- s28 – special rule, normally relates to when land is a gift, relates to chronological order
- 29 – general rule, used when there is a sale, sale for valuable consideration, LRA recognises registered estates such as
freehold and leasehold/registered charges s51 (mortgages) entry of notice - s33 has exclusions, unregistered interests
which override, relates to BIUT. Overreaching – City of London v Flegf
- S132 – valuable consideration is not marriage or nominal money.
Unregistered Land:
Legal interests?- Legal rights bind the world
Equitable interests governed by:
1) LCA 1972 – class A – C = bind purchaser/ C (iv)? Bound for moneys worth, Midland Bank v Green – interprets LCA
strictly
- Entry of notice constitutes actual notice, there is also constructive notice LPA s 198/199
2) Overreaching – s2/27? Pay capital to 2 trustees to overreach the right
- Actual occupation case law – Hodgson v Mark – shared occupation, Chaudhary v Yavuz – continuous, Chhokar v
Chhokar = temporary absence is occupation, Abbey National v Cann = holding on trust is not occupation, Stand
Securities v Caswell – occupation by agent is not occupation, Link lending v bustard = meaning of occupation.
- BIUT overreached? Kingsnorth Finance v Tizard, contribution to purchase price – dyer v dyer
3) bona fide test- determines priority when BIUT not been overreached and when equitable interests not in LCA
Adverse Possession:
1) Factual possession – powell v mcfarlane
2) Intention to possess -buckinghamshire cc v moran
3) Show p is adverse – O v B/J v G/CBC v S
4) Time – unreg land = 12yrs, limitation act, paper owner title estinguished, reg land = LRA 2002 sch 6 para 1/2/6
Write about human rights – JA Pye v Graham
Write about LASPO – s144, best v chief land registrar
Easements:
Re Ellenborough Park Criteria:
1) Has to be a dominant and servient tenement owner
2) Has to accommodate land not people (Moody v Steggles/Hill v Tupper/Bailey v Stephens)
3) D & S owners must be different people
4) Must be a subject matter of a grant
4a) must be grantor and grantee, age 18 and of sound mind
4b) must be in traditional list of easements (Right of way - B v G/washing line – J v M – domestic facilities – W v M,
garden – Re Ellenborough Park, Dalton v Angus – support, Calls v Home colonial stores – light through defined
aperture
4c) right must be definite – wandering – Re Ellenborough
4d) Must not impose positive burden on servient tenenment
4e) reasonable alternative use test – London Blenheim estates v Ladbrook Retail park, Copeland v greenhalf, test
critized by batchelow v marlow, monecrief v jamieson had new test about control of land when using an easement
Aquisiton of easements:
- Express grant or reservation – by deed, expressly stating
- Implied grant or reservation – 4 situations
1) Absolute necessity – nickerson v baraclough 2) common intention – wong v Beaumont properties
3) Wheeldon v burrows/wheeler v jj saunders/kirk v wardland 4) s62 LPA
- Prescription 1) since 1189 – common law 2) doctrine of lost modern grant – lost deed 3) prescription act 1832
