LAND LAW - TABLE OF CASES EXAM
QUESTIONS WITH CORRECT
ANSWERS
Kingsnorth Trust Ltd v Tizard [1986] 1 WLR 783 - Answer-In Kingsnorth Trust Ltd v
Tizard [1986] the court held that the wife's occupation was sufficiently obvious to fix
the surveyor with notice of the fact that she was in occupation and therefore was a
person who might have an interest in the property.
Laskar v Laskar [2008] EWCA Civ 347 - Answer-In Laskar v Laskar [2008] a mother
and daughter purchased a property and registered it in their joint names. The
property was not used as a family home but let to tenants. The daughter contributed
4 per cent of the purchase price and claimed 50 per cent in reliance upon Stack v
Dowden. This was rejected by the Court of Appeal. The purchase was an investment
and the court said it was not right to apply Stack v Dowden in this context. The
implication here was that mother/daughter relationships could be within the scope of
Stack but, in this case, it was a commercial arrangement and Stack would not
therefore apply.
Leigh v Taylor [1902] AC 157 - Answer-In Leigh v Taylor [1902] a tapestry that was
nailed to the wall of the premises was held to be a fitting. Normally, one hangs a
picture, painting or tapestry to show the object itself to its best advantage and not to
benefit the house as a whole.
Link Lending Ltd v Hussein [2010] 1 P & CR D16 - Answer-In Link Lending Ltd v
Hussein [2010] the court held that there was no single test for determining whether
there was a person in actual occupation. All factors could be taken into account, for
example:
•the degree of permanence and continuity of presence of the person claiming actual
occupation;
•the intention of the parties;
•the reasons for the absence;
•the length of absence; and
•other personal circumstances.
In this case, the respondent had been in psychiatric care and was not allowed to live
in the house, but she still considered the house to be her home and made
supervised visits to the property every week.
The court held that there was sufficient evidence of actual occupation.
Liverpool City Council v Irwin [1977] AC 239 - Answer-There may be an implied
easement if the parties to the transaction must clearly have intended this. In
Liverpool City Council v Irwin [1977] there was no express grant of an easement in
favour of the tenants to use staircases and lifts to reach their ninth- and tenth-storey
flats. Nevertheless, such an easement must obviously be implied.
Lloyds Bank v Rosset [1991] AC 107 - Answer-This argument was developed by the
House of Lords in Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset [1991], where it was considered doubtful
, that anything less than direct contributions to the purchase price, whether initially or
by payment of mortgage instalments, would be sufficient. In this particular case, the
contribution was towards the renovation and decoration of a house; this was
considered an insufficient contribution for a common intention to be inferred.
London & Blenheim Estates Ltd v Ladbroke Retail Parks Ltd [1994] 1 WLR 31 -
Answer-the courts decided that the right to park cars could be an easement.
Lynn Shellfish Ltd & Ors v Loose & Anor [2016] UKSC 14 - Answer-In Lynn Shellfish
Ltd and Others v Loose and Another [2016] the extent of an exclusive prescriptive
right (a right acquired after 20 years' use) to take cockles and mussels from a stretch
of the foreshore on the west coast of Norfolk was to be determined by reference to
the lowest astronomical tide. Such a tide only occurs every 18 years. This decision of
the Supreme Court illustrates that the boundary or extent of a right over a foreshore
can fluctuate depending on the state of the tide.
Moncrieff v Jamieson [2007] UKHL 42 - Answer-However, doubts were expressed by
the House of Lords in the Scottish case of Moncrieff v Jamieson [2007] as to whether
Batchelor v Marlow was correctly decided by the Court of Appeal. The House
considered whether exclusive car parking rights could be easements. The court in
Waterman and Another v Boyle and Another [2009] applied Moncrieff. The right to
park a car does now appear to be a valid easement.
Moody v Steggles [1879] 2 Ch D 261 - Answer-In Moody v Steggles [1879] the right
to place a pub sign on another's land was held capable of being an easement. This
was because the pub had been there for a long time and thus the land and its use
had been inextricably linked. Since the easement benefits the land itself, rather than
the landowner, s62 LPA 1925 provides that the easement will normally be sold with
the land.
Mortgage Corporation Ltd v Shaire [2001] 4 All ER 364 - Answer-Mortgage
Corporation Ltd v Shaire [2001], where the property in question was still needed as a
family home. The sale of a family home could be suspended until the child reaches
the age of 18.
Nickerson v Barraclough [1982] 2 All ER 669 - Answer-An easement will be implied if
absolutely necessary. This can arise where land is landlocked and there is no other
access without a right of way (Nickerson v Barraclough [1981]).
Oxley v Hiscock [2004] 2 FLR 669 - Answer-A resulting trust can evolve into a
constructive trust over time with the addition of the common intention element. This
can be to the beneficiary's advantage in that the quantification (valuation) of the
share is not then based on the proportion of the original contribution (as with
resulting trusts) but by what is fair in the circumstances (Oxley v Hiscock [2004]).
P & S Platt Ltd v Crouch [2003] The Times 27 August - Answer-n P & S Platt Ltd v
Crouch [2003], however, the Court of Appeal decided that the right to use river
moorings was capable of being an easement.
QUESTIONS WITH CORRECT
ANSWERS
Kingsnorth Trust Ltd v Tizard [1986] 1 WLR 783 - Answer-In Kingsnorth Trust Ltd v
Tizard [1986] the court held that the wife's occupation was sufficiently obvious to fix
the surveyor with notice of the fact that she was in occupation and therefore was a
person who might have an interest in the property.
Laskar v Laskar [2008] EWCA Civ 347 - Answer-In Laskar v Laskar [2008] a mother
and daughter purchased a property and registered it in their joint names. The
property was not used as a family home but let to tenants. The daughter contributed
4 per cent of the purchase price and claimed 50 per cent in reliance upon Stack v
Dowden. This was rejected by the Court of Appeal. The purchase was an investment
and the court said it was not right to apply Stack v Dowden in this context. The
implication here was that mother/daughter relationships could be within the scope of
Stack but, in this case, it was a commercial arrangement and Stack would not
therefore apply.
Leigh v Taylor [1902] AC 157 - Answer-In Leigh v Taylor [1902] a tapestry that was
nailed to the wall of the premises was held to be a fitting. Normally, one hangs a
picture, painting or tapestry to show the object itself to its best advantage and not to
benefit the house as a whole.
Link Lending Ltd v Hussein [2010] 1 P & CR D16 - Answer-In Link Lending Ltd v
Hussein [2010] the court held that there was no single test for determining whether
there was a person in actual occupation. All factors could be taken into account, for
example:
•the degree of permanence and continuity of presence of the person claiming actual
occupation;
•the intention of the parties;
•the reasons for the absence;
•the length of absence; and
•other personal circumstances.
In this case, the respondent had been in psychiatric care and was not allowed to live
in the house, but she still considered the house to be her home and made
supervised visits to the property every week.
The court held that there was sufficient evidence of actual occupation.
Liverpool City Council v Irwin [1977] AC 239 - Answer-There may be an implied
easement if the parties to the transaction must clearly have intended this. In
Liverpool City Council v Irwin [1977] there was no express grant of an easement in
favour of the tenants to use staircases and lifts to reach their ninth- and tenth-storey
flats. Nevertheless, such an easement must obviously be implied.
Lloyds Bank v Rosset [1991] AC 107 - Answer-This argument was developed by the
House of Lords in Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset [1991], where it was considered doubtful
, that anything less than direct contributions to the purchase price, whether initially or
by payment of mortgage instalments, would be sufficient. In this particular case, the
contribution was towards the renovation and decoration of a house; this was
considered an insufficient contribution for a common intention to be inferred.
London & Blenheim Estates Ltd v Ladbroke Retail Parks Ltd [1994] 1 WLR 31 -
Answer-the courts decided that the right to park cars could be an easement.
Lynn Shellfish Ltd & Ors v Loose & Anor [2016] UKSC 14 - Answer-In Lynn Shellfish
Ltd and Others v Loose and Another [2016] the extent of an exclusive prescriptive
right (a right acquired after 20 years' use) to take cockles and mussels from a stretch
of the foreshore on the west coast of Norfolk was to be determined by reference to
the lowest astronomical tide. Such a tide only occurs every 18 years. This decision of
the Supreme Court illustrates that the boundary or extent of a right over a foreshore
can fluctuate depending on the state of the tide.
Moncrieff v Jamieson [2007] UKHL 42 - Answer-However, doubts were expressed by
the House of Lords in the Scottish case of Moncrieff v Jamieson [2007] as to whether
Batchelor v Marlow was correctly decided by the Court of Appeal. The House
considered whether exclusive car parking rights could be easements. The court in
Waterman and Another v Boyle and Another [2009] applied Moncrieff. The right to
park a car does now appear to be a valid easement.
Moody v Steggles [1879] 2 Ch D 261 - Answer-In Moody v Steggles [1879] the right
to place a pub sign on another's land was held capable of being an easement. This
was because the pub had been there for a long time and thus the land and its use
had been inextricably linked. Since the easement benefits the land itself, rather than
the landowner, s62 LPA 1925 provides that the easement will normally be sold with
the land.
Mortgage Corporation Ltd v Shaire [2001] 4 All ER 364 - Answer-Mortgage
Corporation Ltd v Shaire [2001], where the property in question was still needed as a
family home. The sale of a family home could be suspended until the child reaches
the age of 18.
Nickerson v Barraclough [1982] 2 All ER 669 - Answer-An easement will be implied if
absolutely necessary. This can arise where land is landlocked and there is no other
access without a right of way (Nickerson v Barraclough [1981]).
Oxley v Hiscock [2004] 2 FLR 669 - Answer-A resulting trust can evolve into a
constructive trust over time with the addition of the common intention element. This
can be to the beneficiary's advantage in that the quantification (valuation) of the
share is not then based on the proportion of the original contribution (as with
resulting trusts) but by what is fair in the circumstances (Oxley v Hiscock [2004]).
P & S Platt Ltd v Crouch [2003] The Times 27 August - Answer-n P & S Platt Ltd v
Crouch [2003], however, the Court of Appeal decided that the right to use river
moorings was capable of being an easement.
