PROPERTY CASE LIST:
King v David Allen & Sons Billposting Ltd
- A tenant of a lease over a cinema gave the claimant a license to advertise within the
grounds in exchange for a fee. The tenant brought their lease to an end, and a new
lease was granted to a different tenant. The claimant sought to continue advertising
within the grounds, but the new tenant refused to honour the agreement.
- The issue in this case was whether the claimant’s contractual license to advertise
could be enforced against the new tenant, and if not, whether the original tenant
would be liable in damages for breach of contract.
- The House of Lords held that the license could not be enforced against the new
tenant for two reasons:
o Termination of the lease by either party would also terminate the possession
of any license granted by the tenant to another -> so no existing license could
be enforced against the new tenant
o Contractual licenses are personal rights meaning that they are non-
proprietary therefore cannot bind third parties / successors in title to the
land.
National Provincial Bank v Ainsworth
- A man, his wife and children were occupants of a piece of property, though the
defendant was the sole registered proprietor. The property was later used to secure
an overdraft for his company, and the bank which granted the overdraft registered a
charge against the house accordingly. However, prior to arrangement with the bank,
the man had abandoned the property, along with his family, and the wife was
permitted to continue living there rent free as part of the separation agreement. The
bank sought possession of the property, which the wife resisted.
- Issue: wife in actual occupation – overriding interest in sch3 para 2 LRA. What sort of
interest could be couple with the actual occupation?
- The House of Lords held the wife had no overriding interest, and so the bank could
take possession of the property.
- The House of Lords held that the necessary interest had to be proprietary. They held
that the separation agreement permitting the wife to remain in the house was a
mere license, and licenses are a personal, non-proprietary right. As the wife did not
have a proprietary interest in the house, she had no interest which could amount to
an overriding interest.
,Manchester Airport plc v Dutton
- The claimants, Manchester Airport, wished to construct a second runway at the
airport. The defendants, a group of environmental protestors, objected to the works
and entered neighbouring land owned by the National Trust. They set up camp
without a licence or consent in order to obstruct the works. Subsequently, the
National Trust granted the Airport a licence to enter the land and fell trees there.
The Airport then applied for and obtained an order for possession of the land
pursuant to the Rules of the Supreme Court Ord. 113. The defendants appealed
against the grant of the order and the dispute went to the Court of Appeal.
- The argument against the grant of the order was that it would amount to ejectment.
A licence is a mere personal right, whereas a lease is a proprietary interest in land. A
tenant under a lease may sue in trespass. However, a licensee has fewer rights. The
defendants argued that the grant of an order for possession was only available to
someone with a title or an estate in land. As a mere licensee, the Airport lacked
this.
- The appeal was dismissed, and the order was upheld. Laws LJ stated that just
because ejectment was limited to parties with a title or interest to land this did not
prevent them granting possession to a mere licensee if that was necessary in order
to give effect to the licensee’s rights under his contract with the licensor. The court
held that it made no difference whether the Airport had actually occupied the land
before the protestors
- A gave licence to B (personal right) -> B’s right can be imposed on X and they can be
kicked out -> X’s right to the land was independent of A and thus weaker than B’s
right.
Armory v Delamirie
- Claimant was a boy working for a chimney sweep and he found a ring with jewels, takes
it to the goldsmiths (D) to know its value. When he goes back to get it, D removes the
jewels and offers him money instead. The boy refuses.
- The Court held that both Armory and Delamirie had property rights in the jewel,
even though neither was the true owner. Held that they each have a right to
possession that is enforceable against everyone except those with a greater right to
the possession. The true owner of the jewel was not relevant, the Court was only
concerned with who had a better right to possession.
- The priority of rights to possession say that a finder has better title to property that
he or she finds over everyone except the true owner, thus Armory had full title to
the jewel.
, The Tubantia
- Sank to the bottom of the North Sea. In 1922 the claimants were a salvage company
and started their operations. They took about a month to salvage this ship. A rival
salvage company came and interfered with it. They argued that it was anyone’s to
claim.
- Inquires: 1) kind of physical control practically capable? 2) could physical control be
applied to the thing as a whole? 3) was occupation sufficient for practical purposes
to exclude strangers from interfering?
- Cannot exclude others from coming to the area or diving under water but to an
extend they made their claim pretty clear by already started working on it and
putting stuff around it.
JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham
- P owned farmland and allowed G to graze his cattle on land on a 6month lease. P
refused to grant new lease after this one ended.
- G however continued to occupy the land over the years. G said he’d be happy to pay
rent if P wanted but P ignored him. G went to land registry and registered caution
against P’s title.
- P sought to get rid of caution since G was trying to claim land as his under adverse
possession, under which you need intention to possess.
- Held: It is not the nature of the acts but the intention with which they are done that
determined whether or not the occupiers is in possession.
- Intention to possess = he didn’t give Pye a key when he fenced the land.
- Their willingness to enter into a new agreement (or pay rent) may have been
contrary to an intention to ‘own’ but was not inconsistent with an intention to
possess
o The claimant’s acts of possession must be open and not secretive -> in the
absence of deliberate concealment, it is not necessary for the PO to be aware of
them – Powell v McFarlane
o How to prove intent remains unclear: could be through conduct
o Conversely, a claim to AP may fail bc a claimant’s acts of possession are
insufficient to establish intent
Waverley Borough Council v Fletcher
- The defendant was using a metal detector in a park owned by the claimant council.
The defendant found a brooch and reported this to the authorities. The Coroner
decided that it was not treasure trove. The issue was then who could claim the
brooch - the claimant or the defendant
- In practice possession of land should generally be taken as carrying with it an intent
to possession of object in or attached to it.
King v David Allen & Sons Billposting Ltd
- A tenant of a lease over a cinema gave the claimant a license to advertise within the
grounds in exchange for a fee. The tenant brought their lease to an end, and a new
lease was granted to a different tenant. The claimant sought to continue advertising
within the grounds, but the new tenant refused to honour the agreement.
- The issue in this case was whether the claimant’s contractual license to advertise
could be enforced against the new tenant, and if not, whether the original tenant
would be liable in damages for breach of contract.
- The House of Lords held that the license could not be enforced against the new
tenant for two reasons:
o Termination of the lease by either party would also terminate the possession
of any license granted by the tenant to another -> so no existing license could
be enforced against the new tenant
o Contractual licenses are personal rights meaning that they are non-
proprietary therefore cannot bind third parties / successors in title to the
land.
National Provincial Bank v Ainsworth
- A man, his wife and children were occupants of a piece of property, though the
defendant was the sole registered proprietor. The property was later used to secure
an overdraft for his company, and the bank which granted the overdraft registered a
charge against the house accordingly. However, prior to arrangement with the bank,
the man had abandoned the property, along with his family, and the wife was
permitted to continue living there rent free as part of the separation agreement. The
bank sought possession of the property, which the wife resisted.
- Issue: wife in actual occupation – overriding interest in sch3 para 2 LRA. What sort of
interest could be couple with the actual occupation?
- The House of Lords held the wife had no overriding interest, and so the bank could
take possession of the property.
- The House of Lords held that the necessary interest had to be proprietary. They held
that the separation agreement permitting the wife to remain in the house was a
mere license, and licenses are a personal, non-proprietary right. As the wife did not
have a proprietary interest in the house, she had no interest which could amount to
an overriding interest.
,Manchester Airport plc v Dutton
- The claimants, Manchester Airport, wished to construct a second runway at the
airport. The defendants, a group of environmental protestors, objected to the works
and entered neighbouring land owned by the National Trust. They set up camp
without a licence or consent in order to obstruct the works. Subsequently, the
National Trust granted the Airport a licence to enter the land and fell trees there.
The Airport then applied for and obtained an order for possession of the land
pursuant to the Rules of the Supreme Court Ord. 113. The defendants appealed
against the grant of the order and the dispute went to the Court of Appeal.
- The argument against the grant of the order was that it would amount to ejectment.
A licence is a mere personal right, whereas a lease is a proprietary interest in land. A
tenant under a lease may sue in trespass. However, a licensee has fewer rights. The
defendants argued that the grant of an order for possession was only available to
someone with a title or an estate in land. As a mere licensee, the Airport lacked
this.
- The appeal was dismissed, and the order was upheld. Laws LJ stated that just
because ejectment was limited to parties with a title or interest to land this did not
prevent them granting possession to a mere licensee if that was necessary in order
to give effect to the licensee’s rights under his contract with the licensor. The court
held that it made no difference whether the Airport had actually occupied the land
before the protestors
- A gave licence to B (personal right) -> B’s right can be imposed on X and they can be
kicked out -> X’s right to the land was independent of A and thus weaker than B’s
right.
Armory v Delamirie
- Claimant was a boy working for a chimney sweep and he found a ring with jewels, takes
it to the goldsmiths (D) to know its value. When he goes back to get it, D removes the
jewels and offers him money instead. The boy refuses.
- The Court held that both Armory and Delamirie had property rights in the jewel,
even though neither was the true owner. Held that they each have a right to
possession that is enforceable against everyone except those with a greater right to
the possession. The true owner of the jewel was not relevant, the Court was only
concerned with who had a better right to possession.
- The priority of rights to possession say that a finder has better title to property that
he or she finds over everyone except the true owner, thus Armory had full title to
the jewel.
, The Tubantia
- Sank to the bottom of the North Sea. In 1922 the claimants were a salvage company
and started their operations. They took about a month to salvage this ship. A rival
salvage company came and interfered with it. They argued that it was anyone’s to
claim.
- Inquires: 1) kind of physical control practically capable? 2) could physical control be
applied to the thing as a whole? 3) was occupation sufficient for practical purposes
to exclude strangers from interfering?
- Cannot exclude others from coming to the area or diving under water but to an
extend they made their claim pretty clear by already started working on it and
putting stuff around it.
JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham
- P owned farmland and allowed G to graze his cattle on land on a 6month lease. P
refused to grant new lease after this one ended.
- G however continued to occupy the land over the years. G said he’d be happy to pay
rent if P wanted but P ignored him. G went to land registry and registered caution
against P’s title.
- P sought to get rid of caution since G was trying to claim land as his under adverse
possession, under which you need intention to possess.
- Held: It is not the nature of the acts but the intention with which they are done that
determined whether or not the occupiers is in possession.
- Intention to possess = he didn’t give Pye a key when he fenced the land.
- Their willingness to enter into a new agreement (or pay rent) may have been
contrary to an intention to ‘own’ but was not inconsistent with an intention to
possess
o The claimant’s acts of possession must be open and not secretive -> in the
absence of deliberate concealment, it is not necessary for the PO to be aware of
them – Powell v McFarlane
o How to prove intent remains unclear: could be through conduct
o Conversely, a claim to AP may fail bc a claimant’s acts of possession are
insufficient to establish intent
Waverley Borough Council v Fletcher
- The defendant was using a metal detector in a park owned by the claimant council.
The defendant found a brooch and reported this to the authorities. The Coroner
decided that it was not treasure trove. The issue was then who could claim the
brooch - the claimant or the defendant
- In practice possession of land should generally be taken as carrying with it an intent
to possession of object in or attached to it.
