THE PRINCIPLES OF LAND LAW 22 March 2021
Welcome to the Online
Resources for The
Principles of Land Law.
https://oup-
arc.com/access/lees1e
Al
Alii v D
Dinc
inc [2
[20
020
20]] E
EW
WHC 30
3055
55 (C
(Ch)
h)
The judgment of Worthington QC The Principles of Land Law and are properties. This was also a gratuitous
sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge therefore not considered here. transfer. Second, he granted a charge
in Ali v Dinc is a detailed examination in relation to the other property, in
of the range of legal structures which Fact
Factss return for c £460,000. He did not
can arise in land law in response to a give this money to C, but instead
The facts of the case, although
transfer, not intended as a gift, but used it as if it were his own. Both the
unclear in many respects, in outline
which was not, on its face, a typical lease and the charge were registered.
are fairly simple. C (Ali) held title to
sale. The Court examines not only
two properties. He transferred these The question for the Court (amongst
proprietary estoppel and presumed
titles to D1 (I Dinc). These transfers others) was whether C obtained any
resulting trusts, but also liens and,
were made for no consideration, but proprietary interest in the property
critically, the Quistclose trust
they were not intended as a gift. following the transfer to D, and
(amongst much else). For the
Instead, the judge found, they were whether that interest would give rise
purposes of this note, to link closely
based on an arrangement between to a claim against D1, and be binding
to the material covered in the
the parties, the true nature of which on D2 and D3.
textbook, I will focus on the
remains unclear. However, one
Quistclose trust; the comments on
element was clear: it was intended Decis
Decision
ion
the line of case law around Mortgage
that D1 would take title to the
Express v Lambert and the role of The Court held that there was indeed
property and then utilise the
section 26 LRA 2002; and the a proprietary interest generated in
property to raise funds which would
comments on proprietary estoppel. C’s favour. This was through the
then be paid to C. D did not do this.
The details of the trust response, and Quistclose trust. Such a trust
Instead, D entered into two
the relationship with the unjust emerges when one party takes
transactions. First, he granted a 999 -
enrichment, go beyond the scope of property belonging to another for a
year lease to his brother (D2) in
respect of a flat in one of the specified and mutually known
This case relates to the discussion of priorities in registered land in chapter 5, and implied trusts in chapter 7.
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-principles-of-land-law-9780198810995?q=lees%20principles%20of%20land%20law&lang=en&cc=gb
© Oxford University Press 2021
Welcome to the Online
Resources for The
Principles of Land Law.
https://oup-
arc.com/access/lees1e
Al
Alii v D
Dinc
inc [2
[20
020
20]] E
EW
WHC 30
3055
55 (C
(Ch)
h)
The judgment of Worthington QC The Principles of Land Law and are properties. This was also a gratuitous
sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge therefore not considered here. transfer. Second, he granted a charge
in Ali v Dinc is a detailed examination in relation to the other property, in
of the range of legal structures which Fact
Factss return for c £460,000. He did not
can arise in land law in response to a give this money to C, but instead
The facts of the case, although
transfer, not intended as a gift, but used it as if it were his own. Both the
unclear in many respects, in outline
which was not, on its face, a typical lease and the charge were registered.
are fairly simple. C (Ali) held title to
sale. The Court examines not only
two properties. He transferred these The question for the Court (amongst
proprietary estoppel and presumed
titles to D1 (I Dinc). These transfers others) was whether C obtained any
resulting trusts, but also liens and,
were made for no consideration, but proprietary interest in the property
critically, the Quistclose trust
they were not intended as a gift. following the transfer to D, and
(amongst much else). For the
Instead, the judge found, they were whether that interest would give rise
purposes of this note, to link closely
based on an arrangement between to a claim against D1, and be binding
to the material covered in the
the parties, the true nature of which on D2 and D3.
textbook, I will focus on the
remains unclear. However, one
Quistclose trust; the comments on
element was clear: it was intended Decis
Decision
ion
the line of case law around Mortgage
that D1 would take title to the
Express v Lambert and the role of The Court held that there was indeed
property and then utilise the
section 26 LRA 2002; and the a proprietary interest generated in
property to raise funds which would
comments on proprietary estoppel. C’s favour. This was through the
then be paid to C. D did not do this.
The details of the trust response, and Quistclose trust. Such a trust
Instead, D entered into two
the relationship with the unjust emerges when one party takes
transactions. First, he granted a 999 -
enrichment, go beyond the scope of property belonging to another for a
year lease to his brother (D2) in
respect of a flat in one of the specified and mutually known
This case relates to the discussion of priorities in registered land in chapter 5, and implied trusts in chapter 7.
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-principles-of-land-law-9780198810995?q=lees%20principles%20of%20land%20law&lang=en&cc=gb
© Oxford University Press 2021
