Land Law
Introduction to Land Law
Things v property
● Property is a power relationship
○ ‘This thing is proper to me’ - asserts a degree of social and legal control
over that resource
● Property is a social and legal institution governing the use of most things, and the
allocation of some items of social wealth (Harris, Property and Justice)
● Property denotes order (you can do what you like with your own things, but
someone else cannot) of relationships between the person and the thing, and
other people and the thing
Land v personal property
● Personal property is things such as books or cars etc
● Land has many uses and purposes, where personal property generally has one
function
○ Food production
○ Social
○ Recreational
○ Work/commercial
○ Security
○ Shelter
● Land is however, a limited resource
● Nature of the relationship of land as property is different from the nature of the
owners relationship with personal property
○ Not absolute
■ Rights can be fragmented
■ They are relative
■ All rights are subject to governmental controls
● Eg. what you can do with the land in relation to the
environment etc
● Nature of rights
○ Personal (rights in personam)
○ Proprietary (rights in rem)
■ Means ‘rights in the thing’
■ Not only can you exercise your rights against the person who
granted you the original relationship with the land, it also means if
the land changes hands, your right runs with the land
● You own property, and someone wants to lease the property
from you for 2 years, they will pay money to lease it from
you. You decide you want to sell 6 months after creating the
lease, in order to make the lease enforceable against the
person who the property has been sold to, must show the
right is in the property and not just a contractual right
against the person who sold the property. Nature of rights in
land means you are able to enforce against any third party
,Land Law
where the land is transferred, gives a right which runs with
the land and affects third parties.
● Dorman v Rogers [1982] - “In legal usage property is not the
land or the thing, but is in the land or thing”
● Formality requirements
○ Contracts can be formed orally, they do not have to be in writing, however
land has specific formality requirements (with minor exceptions)
■ This is due to the fact that land has such high value, but also
because the rights of the land can bind subsequent owners due to
the nature of the variety of relationships which can be on that land
■ Ensures that there is evidence for the transactions which take place
● Remedies
○ Rights in personam
■ Contractual
○ Rights in rem
■ Transferable, affects third parties
● Legal terminology
○ Personal property:
■ Choses in action - means ‘things’ such as cheques, debts etc
■ Choses in possession - ‘objects’ such as a table, books etc
○ Land:
■ Corporeal - tangible
■ Incorporeal - intangible
Statutory definition of land
Five dimensions of land:
● Law of Property Act 1925, s205(1)(ix) - ‘Land of any tenure and mines and
minerals, whether or not held apart from the surface, buildings or parts of
buildings (whether the division is horizontal, vertical or made in any other way)
and other corporeal hereditaments; also a manor, an advowson, and a rent and
other incorporeal hereditaments, and an easement, right, privilege, or benefit in,
over, or derived from land.’
○ 1st and 2nd dimensions are essentially what you see on a map
■ In law you don't own simply the top part of the land, you own
anything below that too and subsequently any minerals etc.
Additionally you own the airspace above your property
○ 3rd dimension
■ Buildings or parts of buildings
■ Corporeal hereditaments
● s.62(1) LPA 1925 - “A conveyance [transfer] of land shall be
deemed to include … with the land all buildings, erections,
fixtures, commons, hedge, ditches, fences, ways, waters,
water-courses …”
■ To establish what ‘fixtures’ encompasses, you must look at case
law, and establish how far/well was it attached to the land
,Land Law
■ Previous test was more about whether the item was attached to the
property in any way, but now the purpose of the item is more
focused on (test of objective intention)
● Was it intended to be a permanent or lasting improvement
to the land, or just temporarily attached to the land for the
purpose or convenience of the enjoyment of the object
○ Objects which rest on the ground by their own weight
are usually chattels, if they’re meant to be just things
there to help the owners enjoyment of the land they
would not be considered part of the land
● Holland v Hodgson [1872] LR 7 CP 328 - case about looms in
a mill, degree of annexation test
○ Degree of annexation and purpose of annexation
● Berkley v Poulett [1977] 1 EGLR 86 -
● D’Eyncourt v Gregory [1866] LR 3 Eq 382 - marble lion
statues were deemed to be integral to the land because they
were too heavy to move
● Leigh v Taylor [1902] AC 157 - tapestries were only fixed to
the wall to achieve enjoyment, not considered to be
intended to enhance the land permanently
■ LPA 1925 s.62(1) - “A conveyance of land shall be deemed to
include … with the land all … liberties, privileges, easements, rights,
and advantages whatsoever, appertaining or reputed to appertain
the land …”
○ 4th dimension
■ Estates/time, ancient idea of tenure (holding the land)
● King owned all the land, would grant land to the barons, who
would provide money and knights to the king; barons would
grant land to the knights, who in turn would provide
protection and military service; the knights would grant land
to the villeins, who would provide food and services when
demanded
■ All land is still held by the Crown
■ ‘Ownership’ of a slice of time in the land
● Freehold estate (fee simple absolute in possession)
○ Tenure of potentially unlimited duration
● Leasehold estate (term of years absolute)
○ Fixed term
● Life interest
○ Exists where someone wants to leave their land to
their children, but their husband etc may still need to
use the land whilst they are still alive - would say
they are leaving the land to them for their life, and so
once they die too the property will go to their children
○ 5th dimension
■ Legal dimension - law and equity
, Land Law
● About remedies and rights available if something goes wrong
with the transaction
■ Mabo v Queensland (No 2) [1992] - “... each estate could itself be
the ‘subject of ownership’ both in law and in equity”
● Leasehold could be held in law and in equity, you could
assert your rights in law or equity
Key features of Personal v Proprietary Rights
● Proprietary if:
○ Falls within substantive legal definition
■ For each ownership relationship with the land (leasehold, easement
etc) there are certain criteria which must be met for it to be a
property right and give rise to ownership
● Eg. a leasehold must be fixed term
■ If the right a person is claiming over land does not fall within legal
definition, the person at best can only have a personal interest and
it cannot be enforced against a third party
■ Even if it does fall within the legal definition, it still must be made in
the right circumstances or else it will still not be enforceable
● Without meeting requirements of the legal definition, or
making it in the right way, you won’t give rise to any form of
enforceable right in land law which will run with the land
○ Formalities
■ Different if registered/unregistered land
■ Legal Right v Equitable Interest in Land
Law and Equity
● Law was concerned with form - has the ownership relationship with land that is
being claimed been made in the right way?
● Equity was concerned with substance - leased a house for 2 years with upfront
payment, but failed to write a deed to transfer it, equity would say you had to
look at the conscience, money has been taken and so there is the expectation that
in return the house is handed over
● Law and Equity came about from two rival jurisdictions which operated against
each other until the end of the 19th century
○ Parliament enacted Judicature Acts 1873, 1875 in order to bring the two
jurisdictions together, meaning there were the same courts and judges
could grant a remedy in either law or equity; and where there was a
conflict between the two, equity would prevail
■ Law gives rise to a right - if you can show you have met the right
formality requirements to create a legal lease, the courts have to
grant you your remedy
■ Equity gives only a discretionary remedy - even if you can show
evidence there is a lease in equity
● “The two streams of jurisdiction, though they run in the same channel, run side by
side and do not mingle their waters.” - Ashburner, Principles of Equity
○ Won't always have a solution in law, and so you may have to turn to equity
Introduction to Land Law
Things v property
● Property is a power relationship
○ ‘This thing is proper to me’ - asserts a degree of social and legal control
over that resource
● Property is a social and legal institution governing the use of most things, and the
allocation of some items of social wealth (Harris, Property and Justice)
● Property denotes order (you can do what you like with your own things, but
someone else cannot) of relationships between the person and the thing, and
other people and the thing
Land v personal property
● Personal property is things such as books or cars etc
● Land has many uses and purposes, where personal property generally has one
function
○ Food production
○ Social
○ Recreational
○ Work/commercial
○ Security
○ Shelter
● Land is however, a limited resource
● Nature of the relationship of land as property is different from the nature of the
owners relationship with personal property
○ Not absolute
■ Rights can be fragmented
■ They are relative
■ All rights are subject to governmental controls
● Eg. what you can do with the land in relation to the
environment etc
● Nature of rights
○ Personal (rights in personam)
○ Proprietary (rights in rem)
■ Means ‘rights in the thing’
■ Not only can you exercise your rights against the person who
granted you the original relationship with the land, it also means if
the land changes hands, your right runs with the land
● You own property, and someone wants to lease the property
from you for 2 years, they will pay money to lease it from
you. You decide you want to sell 6 months after creating the
lease, in order to make the lease enforceable against the
person who the property has been sold to, must show the
right is in the property and not just a contractual right
against the person who sold the property. Nature of rights in
land means you are able to enforce against any third party
,Land Law
where the land is transferred, gives a right which runs with
the land and affects third parties.
● Dorman v Rogers [1982] - “In legal usage property is not the
land or the thing, but is in the land or thing”
● Formality requirements
○ Contracts can be formed orally, they do not have to be in writing, however
land has specific formality requirements (with minor exceptions)
■ This is due to the fact that land has such high value, but also
because the rights of the land can bind subsequent owners due to
the nature of the variety of relationships which can be on that land
■ Ensures that there is evidence for the transactions which take place
● Remedies
○ Rights in personam
■ Contractual
○ Rights in rem
■ Transferable, affects third parties
● Legal terminology
○ Personal property:
■ Choses in action - means ‘things’ such as cheques, debts etc
■ Choses in possession - ‘objects’ such as a table, books etc
○ Land:
■ Corporeal - tangible
■ Incorporeal - intangible
Statutory definition of land
Five dimensions of land:
● Law of Property Act 1925, s205(1)(ix) - ‘Land of any tenure and mines and
minerals, whether or not held apart from the surface, buildings or parts of
buildings (whether the division is horizontal, vertical or made in any other way)
and other corporeal hereditaments; also a manor, an advowson, and a rent and
other incorporeal hereditaments, and an easement, right, privilege, or benefit in,
over, or derived from land.’
○ 1st and 2nd dimensions are essentially what you see on a map
■ In law you don't own simply the top part of the land, you own
anything below that too and subsequently any minerals etc.
Additionally you own the airspace above your property
○ 3rd dimension
■ Buildings or parts of buildings
■ Corporeal hereditaments
● s.62(1) LPA 1925 - “A conveyance [transfer] of land shall be
deemed to include … with the land all buildings, erections,
fixtures, commons, hedge, ditches, fences, ways, waters,
water-courses …”
■ To establish what ‘fixtures’ encompasses, you must look at case
law, and establish how far/well was it attached to the land
,Land Law
■ Previous test was more about whether the item was attached to the
property in any way, but now the purpose of the item is more
focused on (test of objective intention)
● Was it intended to be a permanent or lasting improvement
to the land, or just temporarily attached to the land for the
purpose or convenience of the enjoyment of the object
○ Objects which rest on the ground by their own weight
are usually chattels, if they’re meant to be just things
there to help the owners enjoyment of the land they
would not be considered part of the land
● Holland v Hodgson [1872] LR 7 CP 328 - case about looms in
a mill, degree of annexation test
○ Degree of annexation and purpose of annexation
● Berkley v Poulett [1977] 1 EGLR 86 -
● D’Eyncourt v Gregory [1866] LR 3 Eq 382 - marble lion
statues were deemed to be integral to the land because they
were too heavy to move
● Leigh v Taylor [1902] AC 157 - tapestries were only fixed to
the wall to achieve enjoyment, not considered to be
intended to enhance the land permanently
■ LPA 1925 s.62(1) - “A conveyance of land shall be deemed to
include … with the land all … liberties, privileges, easements, rights,
and advantages whatsoever, appertaining or reputed to appertain
the land …”
○ 4th dimension
■ Estates/time, ancient idea of tenure (holding the land)
● King owned all the land, would grant land to the barons, who
would provide money and knights to the king; barons would
grant land to the knights, who in turn would provide
protection and military service; the knights would grant land
to the villeins, who would provide food and services when
demanded
■ All land is still held by the Crown
■ ‘Ownership’ of a slice of time in the land
● Freehold estate (fee simple absolute in possession)
○ Tenure of potentially unlimited duration
● Leasehold estate (term of years absolute)
○ Fixed term
● Life interest
○ Exists where someone wants to leave their land to
their children, but their husband etc may still need to
use the land whilst they are still alive - would say
they are leaving the land to them for their life, and so
once they die too the property will go to their children
○ 5th dimension
■ Legal dimension - law and equity
, Land Law
● About remedies and rights available if something goes wrong
with the transaction
■ Mabo v Queensland (No 2) [1992] - “... each estate could itself be
the ‘subject of ownership’ both in law and in equity”
● Leasehold could be held in law and in equity, you could
assert your rights in law or equity
Key features of Personal v Proprietary Rights
● Proprietary if:
○ Falls within substantive legal definition
■ For each ownership relationship with the land (leasehold, easement
etc) there are certain criteria which must be met for it to be a
property right and give rise to ownership
● Eg. a leasehold must be fixed term
■ If the right a person is claiming over land does not fall within legal
definition, the person at best can only have a personal interest and
it cannot be enforced against a third party
■ Even if it does fall within the legal definition, it still must be made in
the right circumstances or else it will still not be enforceable
● Without meeting requirements of the legal definition, or
making it in the right way, you won’t give rise to any form of
enforceable right in land law which will run with the land
○ Formalities
■ Different if registered/unregistered land
■ Legal Right v Equitable Interest in Land
Law and Equity
● Law was concerned with form - has the ownership relationship with land that is
being claimed been made in the right way?
● Equity was concerned with substance - leased a house for 2 years with upfront
payment, but failed to write a deed to transfer it, equity would say you had to
look at the conscience, money has been taken and so there is the expectation that
in return the house is handed over
● Law and Equity came about from two rival jurisdictions which operated against
each other until the end of the 19th century
○ Parliament enacted Judicature Acts 1873, 1875 in order to bring the two
jurisdictions together, meaning there were the same courts and judges
could grant a remedy in either law or equity; and where there was a
conflict between the two, equity would prevail
■ Law gives rise to a right - if you can show you have met the right
formality requirements to create a legal lease, the courts have to
grant you your remedy
■ Equity gives only a discretionary remedy - even if you can show
evidence there is a lease in equity
● “The two streams of jurisdiction, though they run in the same channel, run side by
side and do not mingle their waters.” - Ashburner, Principles of Equity
○ Won't always have a solution in law, and so you may have to turn to equity
