1)

In what case did Skarman LJ say that if there is such a degree of annexation that an object cannot be removed without serious damage or some destruction of the reality, then there is a strong argument for the item to be classed as a fixture?

What were the facts of this case?

Berkley v Poulet

A marble statue of a Greek athlete was not considered to be a fixture.

1)

In what case was a crain swinging over the claimant's property held to infringe the ordinary use and enjoyment of the land?

In what case was infringing the use and enjoyment of land held to give rise to a trespass?

What is the latin maxim that this is based on?

Wollerton and Wilson Ltd v Richard Constain Lts (1970)

 Bernstein of Leigh (Baron) v Skyviews & General

Curius solum eiu est unique ad inferus

1)

In what case was a printing press which stood without attachment held to be a chattel?

• Hulme v Brigham

1)

In what case were tapestries were fixed to a wall but the House of Lords held that their purpose was for the better enjoyment of the tapestries and not to make them a part of the land. Their annexation was not enough to make them a fixture?

1)

What act controls the right to abstract water?

Who gives the licence to do this?

• Water Resources Act 1991
• The Environment Agency

1)

What are the main limits on the extent of ownership enjoyed by the fee-simple owner?

1. Airspace
2. Water
3. Boundaries

1)

What are the two tests for chattels and fixtures and what are the cases for this?

1. The degree of annexation
   • Holland v Hodgson
     • Spinning looms bolted to the floor were fixtures
   • Hulme v Brigham
     • Printing press which stood without attachment was a chattel
2. The purpose of the annexation
   • Elitestone Ltd v Morris
     • Held that the intention is the most important thing in establishing whether it was a fixture or a chattel
     • Argued that a bungalow was not a fixture because it was on concrete pillars - was held to be a fixture because it was intended to be part of the reality

1)

What case shows that animals cannot be owend but can be hunted on your own land? (subject to protection rules)

• The case of the swans

1)

What is the exception to the rule that the land owner is entitled to any chattels found on the land?

Treasure - found in the Treasure Act 1996

1)

What is the hedge and ditch presumption?

1)

What is the latin maxim which means that he who owns land owns everything reaching up to the very heavens and down to the depths of the earth?

Which recent case discussed the scope of this and what are the facts of this case?

• Curius solum eiu est unque ad inferous
• Star Energy Weald Basin Ltd v Bocardo SA (2010)
  • Star Energy had a licence to serach for and extract petroleum and had drilled wells which went directly under the land. This drilling was done without the land owner's consent and for a long time without his knowlege. He brought an action in trespass
  • Lord Hope said that the maxim still stood and in this case it was reasonable to apply it. 
  • Held that the drilling was a trespass because the land was not so deep that it could not be accessed by humans so could be owned
  • No injunction was sought here but it is unlikley that it would be given in this case because it was so deep that it could not interfear with the enjoyment of the land and the claimant could not have suffered any loss or inconvenience.  

1)

What older case (Elizabethan room) illustrates that it is not the degree of annexation which is important when deciding if it is a fixture or a chattel but the purpose?

What are the facts of this case?

Re Whaley [1908]

The purpose of the items were to make an Elizabethan room and therefore the items were capable of being fixtures

1)

Where does the law govern the general boundaries rule?

What is this rule?

What case illustrates this rule?

What was the outcome of this case?

s.60(1) LRA 1925

The exact boundary is established by inferance from existing geographical features

Chadwick v Abbotswood Properties Ltd (2005)

Held that the boundary will be where the reasonable lay person would reasonably think it would be

1)

Which act gives a defence to tresspass for aircraft when airoplanes fly at such a height which is reasonable?

The Civil Aviation Act 1982

1)

Which case illustrates that the ad medium filum rule applies to water which divides two plots of land?

Tilbury v Silia

1)

Which statute says that fixtures are included in the conveyance of land?

LPA 1925 s.62

10)

How are constructive and resulting trusts recognised?

Where are the formality requirements that they are exempt from?

What are the differences between them?

Both are implied trusts and are recognised as trusts under s.1(2)(a) TLATA 1996.

Both are exempt from the formality requirements of a trust under s.53(1) LPA 1925

1) Constructive trust is not dependant on money contributions and instead the courts look at fairness (Oxley v Hiscock) there does however have to be a detriment suffered

2) Resulting trust is based on a presumption that contributions to the purchase price indicate an intention for the beneficial interest to be shared according to their contributions?

10)

In what case was the proceeds of a house overreached because it was bought using in part the money of the parents who also moved in with them ?

What are the facts of this case?

City of London v Flegg (1988)

Didn't tell the parents about two further mortgages taken out on Bleak House which they defaulted on and then fled the co

10)

The law commission report on what case recomended that beneficial equitable interests in land be registerable?

Has this been implimented and why?

Williams & Glyn's Bank v Boland

Not registerable. It would be very difficult to make them registerable because they are normally created informally.

10)

Under what statute can beneficiaries of a trust order sale?

What does the court consider here?

What section does the law state these considerations?

s.14 TLATA

1) Intention of the settler

2) Purpose of the property

3) Welfare of any minors

s.15 TLATA

10)

What 4 things need to be considered when looking at whether occupation rights can be granted under TOLATA and where is this found?

s.15 TOLATA

a)Intentions of the persons who created the trust

b) Purposes for which the property is held on trust

c) Welfare of minor children in occupation or reasonably expected to occupy

d)Interests of any creditors

10)

What are the facts of Rosset?

What test was encapsulated here?

What does this case say about whether an interest can be created after acquisition?

Bought using the proceeds of a trust in Mr Rosset's name alone. He took out a loan against the property and didn't tell his wife. He failed to pay and the bank sought possession of the property. Mrs Rossett claimed an overriding interest because of her contributions to the home however she could not show an express agreement for a trust and it was held that only a direct payment towards the purchase would be enough.

Tests: Unless the claim is that the legal owner has done some wrong to the non-legal owner (rosset 1) the only ground on which it is fair to find the non-legal owner has an interest is that both the parties intended this (Rosset 2) - if this is established use Oxely, Stack and Kernott to decide the shares

Only in very limited circumstances can an interest be acquired after acquisition

10)

What case indicates that things other than a direct contribution to the purchase price may be sufficient for there to be a constructive trust?

What are the facts of this case?

Burns v Burns

Couple lived together with their children for 19 years and while the house was in his name alone, she made substantial contributions to the running of the home. Held that it was not sufficient to amount to an interest here but may in other cases

10)

What family law provisions give a spouse(or civil partner) a right of occupation and in what circumstances?

• ss. 30-33 Family Law Act 1996
• Need to look at:
  • The housing needs of any children/parties
  • Financial resources
  • Effect of a court order on the parties/ children to make them move out

10)

What is the difference between Oxley and Stack?

Oxley

Established that where someone who is not a legal owner is held to have a beneficial interest on the basis of a common intention but where there is no common intention as to the shares the court will decide this by looking at what is 'fair having regard to the whole course of dealing'

Stack

Where property is legally held in joint names there is a presumption that the beneficial interest is also held as a joint tenancy. This presumption can however be rebutten and where it is the court will revert to Oxley

10)

What recent case (still to go to the supreme court) shows that interests will be split equally in all but very exceptional circumstances?

What are the facts of this case?

Jones v Kernott (2010)

Home was in joint names which at the time they both agreed was held equally. When they split up the man left the wife with the children, home and mortgage for 14 years before trying to claim his half.

She claimed that the property was no longer held in equal shares because of an unarticulated agreement between them.

They liked this argument in the county court and she got 90% and he 10% and the judge said that he was following both Stack and Oxley in coming to this decision

Court of Appeal held that the shares were still 50/50 based on a speech from Baroness Hale which said that where there is a conveyance of land into joint names at law, the beneficial interest should be split equally except in exceptional circumstances which he could not find here - there was insufficient evidence from which he could find an intention to vary their shares.

10)

What should you look at when deciding beneficial interests?

Rosset - is there a beneficial interest at all

If yes...

Stack - Is it held in joint names? If so is there anything to rebut the presumption of equal shares? or now Kernott -is there anything to say this intention for equal shares has changed?

If yes... Oxley - look at the whole course of dealing with regard to the property

10)

What statute section states 2 routes to sever a joint tenancy?

What are these methods?

What case illustrates the legal method?

What case contains the equitable method?

s.36(2)

1)Notice in writing

Needs to be given to all the other joint tenants

Kinch v Bullard - would have been effective upon the delivery of that notice even if it is never received

2)The old equitable severance rules Williams v Hensman

1)Any act of the person operating on his share

2)Mutual agreement

3)Course of conduct which is sufficient to intimate that the interests of all were mutually treated as construing a tenancy in common.

10)

Where does statute state that one of the conditions which can be imposed by any beneficaries excluded from occupation in a trust of land is rent?

10)

Where does the law say that a beneficiary has a right to occupy if the trust makes clear that the property is to be avaliable for occupation and it is not for any reason unsuitable?

10)

Which case illustrating the principle in Stack was a woman awarded 50% despite only contributing 8.5% because of the shared bank account and joint legal liability for bank payments?

10)

Which type of coownership can only subsist at law?

12)

What case established the rule that a positive coveneant cannot bind future purchasers?

12)

What case shows that if there is a bona fide purchaser of land without notice then he will not be bound by them?

12)

What four things are needed for the burden of a covenant to pass with the land? Is this done in law or equity

This can only happen in equity

1. The burden cannot be a positive burden (that is, it requires expenditure to meet it);
2. The purchaser must have notice of the covenant
3. The covenant must benefit the covenantee's land
4. The covenant must be intended to run with the covenantor's land.

12)

Which case established the principle that negative covenants normally bind subsequent parties?

13)

How long do you have to be exercising a right for to get an easement by prescription?

What statute says this?

20 years

Prescription Act 1932 s.3

13)

What are the only current three ways to create a new legal easement or profit?

1) By implied reservation

2) By implied grant (Wheeldon v Burrows) or s.62(1) LPA 1925

3) By prescription

13)

What case involving a building scheme defined easements?

What was decided in this case?

What other thing was decided here relating to easements which seem to amount to possession?

 Re Ellenborough Park

Defined the essential qualities as:

• There must be a dominant and servient tenement
• An easement must accommodate the dominant tenement that it, be connected with it's enjoyment and for it's benefit
• The dominant and servient owners must be different persons
• The right claimed must be capable of forming the subject matter of a grant

Also decided that if it amounts to possession then it cannot be an easement

13)

What case shows that an easement has to benefit the land and cannot be personally advantagious?

What are the facts of this case?

Hill v Tupper

Term of lease granted him exclusive use of the river for his boat business. Held that this did not benefit the land and was only personally advantagious and therefore could not be an easement

13)

What cases show that an easement cannot equate to possession?

What are the facts of these cases?

Copeland v Greenhalf and Montrose Court

Both involved the parking of cars for large amounts of time 

Contrast Miller v EMCR

Because of the short amount of time that the toilets were used it did not equate to ownership so could be an easement.

13)

What is the key case on a easement by implied grant?

What two things are needed for such an easement?

Wheeldon v Burrows

1) Must be continuous and apparent

2) Must have been and still is used at the time of grant for the benefit of the land

13)

What is the legal status of legal and equitable easements on registered and unregistered land?

Legal easements (those created by deed) are registerable in registered land and binding in unregistered land

Equitable easements on registered land are minor interests and therefore require notice, in unregistered land they need to be registered as land charges unless they were created before 1926

2)

What 3 things did Street v Mountford say were needed in order for there to be a lease?

What were the facts of this case?

1) fixed or periodic term

2) Exclusive possession - meaning that is it to the exclusion of everyone else including the landlord

3)in consideration for a premium - ashburn - need rent

The agreement between the parties purported to be a licence and the landlord expressly reserved the right to enter the room for set purposes. The court warned of sham agreements and found that there really was exclusive possession here and therefore there was a lease

2)

What latin phrase means that one cannot give what he does not have?

2)

Where does the law say that there are now only 2 estates which can subsist?

What are they?

LPA 1925 s.1(1)

freehold and leasehold

3)

In what case was it decided that actual occupation does not need to be continuous or exclusive?

What were the facts and outcome? (hide occupation of wife)

Where is actual occupation an overriding interest?

Kingsnorth Finance v Tuzard (1986)

Marriage broke down and the husband tried to hide his wife's actual occupation when the mortgage brokers came to survey the home. It was held that the brokers, even if the wife was not actually there should have made more enquiries once they discovered he was recently separated.

Schedule 3, paragraph 2 LRA 1925

3)

In what case was it held that an inquiry needed to be made into the wives occupation by the bank when giving a motgage?

What were the facts?

What definiton is given to actual occupation?

Under what section is the overriding right of actual occupation guaranteed in?

Williams and Glyns Bank v Boland

Wives were in actual occupation but were not legal owners of their homes and the bank failed to make enquiries of this actual occupation and the fact that they may have an overriding interest.

Actual occupation is to be interpreted as a matter of fact to be construed in ordinary words of plain English

Overriding interests are now guaranteed under schedule 3, para 2 LRA 2002

3)

In what case was the whole course of dealing looked at when deciding co-ownership interests?

What were the facts of this case? (right to buy)

Oxely v Hiscock

Sold a house which was entirely in the woman's name because of the right to buy legislation (reliance) and bought a new home in the man's name ignoring legal advice - she paid 36% and he paid 61%.

Looked at whole course of dealing in respect of the property and split the property 40/60.

3)

What case held that equity follows the law when there is no express declaration of trust? 

What are the facts of this case?

What 3 circumstances of a constructive truts were laid out here?

In this case, which judge decided that social circumstances should be considered when looking at whether there is a constructive trust?

Stack v Downden (2007)

Woman contributed significantly more to the purchase price of a property than the man but they had not made an express declaration of their shares so initially the proceeds  were divided equally between them 'equality is equity' maxim. This was however overruled because the fact that they maintained separate bank accounts rebutted the presumption and therefore they reverted to the Oxley quantification mechanism

3 instnaces of CT:

1)common intention/bargain

2)Act to their detriment/change of position

3)Unconscionable denial of rights/equitable fraud

Lady Hale

3)

What cases rule on beneficial interest claims based on work done rather than a contribution to the purchase price? (Resulting trust)

What are the facts?

Pettitt v Pettitt

Work done on property belonging to the woman in the relationship to the value of £1000 - could not claim

Gissing v Gissing

Buying of furnatire and the upkeep of children was not enough to allow them to claim

Thomlinson v Humphreys

2009 case which shows that this principle survives stack - housekeeping not enough

3)

What is the presumption when one person provides all the purchase money for a property for someone else? What rebutts this?

The provider of the money gets the whole beneficial interest and the person for whom the house is bought only gets the legal title

Rebutted where it is bought by a father for his child (prob includes mothers too) and when a husband buys a property for his wife

3) In what case was a constructive trust held in a commercial transaction? (property development conditions)

What were the facts of this case?

 What case did this uphold?

Lyrus v Prowsa Developments Ltd (1982)

A building company took on an unfinished development on the condition that it would uphold any rights which the old development would have had to uphold. A man had already placed a significant deposit on one of the houses and therefore it was found that he had a constructive trust against the building company.

Upheld Bannister v Bannister (1948)

3) Which case illustrates that a constructive trust will be given where they have obtained an unjust enrichment from unconscionable dealing. (bought with the occupation of the sister in law)?

What are the facts of this case?

How was it decided that a constructive trust should be held?

Bannister v Bannister (1948)

The defendant who wanted to evict his sister in law from the property which she had sold to him at a lower price on the oral agreement that she should be allowed to live their for the rest of her life. The court imposed on the defendant a constructive trust

Constructive trusts are held by the legal owner of the title as a beneficial equitable ineterests for someone else

4)

Give 5 examples of registerable land charges

1. Restrictive covenants
2. Equitable easemetns
3. Estate contracts
4. Options to purchase
5. General equitable charges

4)

Right of way:

What is required for it to be a legal easement in registered land and unregistered land?

What is needed for it to be an equitable easement in registered land and unregistered land?

For both unregistered and registered land it needs to be granted by deed and comply with s.1(2)(a) LPA 1925

however for registered land it also needs to be registered agaisnt the title of the burdened land

For registered land an equitable right of way needs to be protected by notice on the register to be a binding easement. For unregistered land it needs to be registered as a class D land charge and is only binding if registered as such even if there is notice

4)

What are options to purchase registerable as?

What else is necessary for an option?

• Registerable by notice as a Class C(iv) estate contract (LRA 2002 s.32-34)
• It is a form of estate contract and therefore needs to comply with the statutory requirement of writing (LP(MP)A 1989 s.2(1)
• Imposes no obligation on a purchaser

4)

What is needed to prevent 'gazumping'?

Whta case shows what is needed for such a prevention to be enforceable and what was held here?

A lock out or exclusivity agreement which do not require formalities

Walford v Miles

Needs to be for a specified time which is was not in this case (cannot be open ended)

4)

Where does statute state the formalities for a contract for the sale of land?

What are these formalities?

s.2(1)LP(MP)A 1989

The contract must either be in writing and signed by both the parties; or in two parts, one part signed by each and the two parts exchanged

4)

Where does the law state that a legal estate requires a deed to be executed?

What is the exception?

What are the requirements of a deed?

What are the requirements for registered land?

5)

If there is an adverse possessor of leasehold land who does this run against?

What happens when the lease comes to an end?

How can the lease be ended sooner?

Runs against the tennant as they are the one with the current right to possession. This does not end the lease therefore they remain liable under it and the landlord can bring it to an end for any breaches.

When the lease comes to an end time runs agaisnt the landlord

The tenant can bring the lease to an end sooner by surrendering the lease which means that the landlord can take possession sooner (Fairweather v St Marybone Property Co Ltd)

5)

In what case was an easement of a right of way granted through estoppel?

What are the facts of this case? (building)

ER Ives Investment Ltd v High (1967)

Foundations of a block of flats were mistakenly placed on High's land and it was agreed that they could stay there . This restricted access to his house and he was therefore given a right of way across the back of the flats but there was no formal grant of easement. After the flats had been sold, the purchaser sought to prevent the right of way.

The court of appeal held that the purchaser had to accept the right of way if it wished for the flats to remain on the land, they could not assert the benefit of the deal (foundations) and reject the burden (right of way)

5)

In what case was it held that he equity had been satisfied and therefore there was no proprietary estoppel?

What are the facts of this case? (mother and father bought house)

Sledmore v Dalby (1996)

Mother and father bought a house as joint tenants for their daughter and son in law. After the daughter had died the son-in-law lived there rent free until his father-in-law died. Held that while he had suffered detriment in the work he had done on the house, he had got everything he could expect in equity from not having to pay rent.

5)

In what case was was a full fee simple given to a mistress who had been promised that she would acquire the whole fee simple if she looked after the house and children dispite the fact that she had not contributed towards the purchase value?

5)

What case illustrates that a propretary estoppel can give the clamant anything from the whole of their expectation to nothing at all?

What were the facts? (promise to mistress)

A promise of the whole fee simple was granted to the mistress if she looked after the house and children.

Because she did this she got the whole of the fee simple through pe even though she did not contribute to the purchase value of the home.

5)

What case illustrating the flexibility of remedy for proprietary estoppel only gave the claimant the value of his services?

What are the facts of this case?

Jennings v Rice (2002)

Claimant worked for the deceased as a gardener and gradually his role was increased and eventually he was staying overnight at the house to protect and care for the old woman and was no longer recieving a wage. The woman said that she would 'see him right'.

He claimed that this meant that he had an entitlement under PE to the whole estate however he was only awarded the value of his services.

5)

What is the traditional case of a PE from a mistake of the claimant?

What case gives us the current tests? What are these tests and what are the facts?

What recent case confirms this and what are the facts?

Willmott v Barber (too restrictive)

Taylour fasions v Liverpool Victoria -tenancy renewal not valid and held that the landlord encouraged the belief that it was valid 3 stage test:

1)Mistake of claimant

2) Detrimental reliance

3) Responsibility of the defendant

Yeoman's Row Management Ltd confirms this where there was an agreement that the sale would be completed if he got planning permission so he spent money on this at which point the defendant refused to sell. No estoppel here because businessmen should not that where there is no contract there is no claim

5)

What two things are necessary for intention to possess for adverse possession?

What is no longer necessary and why?

What cases illustrate this?

1) Be dealing with the land as an occupying owener might be expected to deal with in

Powell v MacFairline approved recently in JA Pye [2003]

2) The intention musy be clear to the world

Powell v MacFairline

No longer seems that this has to be inconsistent with the purpose for which the paper owner wants to use the land as was decided in Palmer which was made in reaction to the initial judgement of JA Pye which was overrturned therefore no longer necessary. It was also disaproved in Ofule v Bossert [2009]

5)

Which case illustrates the flexibility of the remedy in proprietary estoppel and that the remedy depends on the nature of the case?

What are the facts of this case? (house bought for son-in-law and daughter)

Sledmore v Dalby

A house was bought by the parents for their daughter and son-in-law as joint tenants. After the daughter died the son-in-law lived in the house rent free for 17 years until the father died and the mother tried to throw him out.

Held that while the son-in-law satisfied the need for reliance by decorating and doing work on the house, this was not proportionate to the free rent and therefore he had exhausted the equity and chould no longer stay there.

5)

Which two cases shows that wills can always be revoaked and therefore in most cases will not give rise to PE?

What case shows that you can rely if no will is made at all?

What are the facts of these three cases? 

Gillet v Holt (2001)

Claimant had worked for the defendant for 30 years for a very low wage and the defendant had during this time made several assurances that he would recieve all or most of the estate and business. This changed when the defendant met a lawyer who moved in with him and subsequently a new will was made giving the claimant nothing - appeal was successful and he did get an interest.

Taylor v Griffiths

Old woman told the claimant that she would leave the estate to him and because of this he stopped charging for his services as handyman and gardner. She changed the will just before she died and it was found that he could not rely on the will and therefore was only awarded the wages that he would have been given.

re Basham

She had spent the majorty of her life looking after her stepfather and he had told her that she would not loose out when he died. He never made a will however she was given her expectations as there was no evidence that he had changed his mind

6)

What does 'equity's darling' refer to?

6)

Where does the law say that the purchaser of unregistered land must check for interests over the period of 15 years?

LPA 1925 s.23

However is still bound by interests over 15 years old which he is aware of (equity's darling)

6)

Which section of which act says that purchasers of unregistered land are bound by interests only up to 15 years (unless he knows of it)

7)

When did it become compulsory that all new freehold ownership of land was registered in England and Wales?

8)

In what case was it held that signs in preparation of actual occupation were not sufficient to be an overriding interest?

8)

Where are overriding interests now found?

9)

In what case was a distinction made between a term of yeas absolute and a lease?

What were the facts of this case?

• Brunton v London and Quadrant Housing Trust
• Held that a housing trust could grant a lease (tenancy by estoppel) in property in which they had no proprietary interest in however they could not grant a term of years absolute (made distinction between these two terms). This meant that they were subject to the reparing requirements of a landlord under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
• The personal tenancy which only involves a lease and not a term of years is only binding on the immediate landlord and not on people with a superior title

9)

What case says that the 'best rent' means 'market rent'?

Where is this needed?

Fitzkriston LLP v Panayi (2008)

LPA 1925 s.2(1) for a lease of under three years

9)

What is needed for a short lease to be binding?

what section does this come under?

s.54(2) LRA 1925

Needs to be at the best rent attainable without taking a fine

9)

What three things are needed for a lease?

1. Exclusive possession
2. Fixed or periodic term
3. Payment of rent

9)

What type of tenancy is a monthly tenancy most likely to be and how is this protected?

A periodic tenancy under s.54(2) LRA 1925 and is protected as an overriding interest as a legal lease not exceeding 7 years

9)

Which legal leases need to be registered?

Which legal leases need to be made by deed?

If they have more than 7 years to run then they need to be registered

If they are under 7 years then they need to be created by deed unless they are under 3 years when they are legal without a deed

• Is an overriding interest under Sch 3, para 2 LRA 2002

• Married couple agreed to execute a second mortgage of their matrimonial home using a company which the husband alone had an interest in as interest.
• The bank giving the mortgage instructed for information to be sent by another branch to the couple but this was not done meaning that the wife signed the documents unaware of the amount that the loan was for or any other information.
• Held that the mortgage could not be enforced by the bank because they failed ot insist that she seek legal advice.
• In this case Lord Browne-Wilkinson hinted that he was in favour of the old doctrine of notice

Held that kitchen units were fixtures but goods such as the refrigerator were chattels

• If it is a legal easement on registered land then it is a registerable disposition
• Equitable easements created after October 2003 are only overriding if:
  • Made by implied reservation
  • by implied grant (rule in Wheeldon v Burrows)
  • By prescription (sch 3. Para 3. LRA 2002)

• Concerned a tennanger who had been prescribed contraception without her mother consenting
• Held that young people should be judged by their ability to contemplate the situation and therefore it was possible for her to give consent without the mother there.

• Grand chamber of the ECtHR was asked to determine whether the English law of adevrse possession under the LRA 1925 breached Art 1 of the 1st protocol of ECHR
• As was explained by Lord Neuberger in Offule v Bossert (2009) the Grand Chamber decided that whist Art 1 was engaged here, the statute fell within the margin of appreciation afforded to the UK government.
• The decission of the House of Lords in this decision to give the freehold to the squatter in this case was therefore good law.

• To make land more alienable
• Avoid the necessity for the purchaser to investigate title everytime land changes hands - mirror principle

• If created pre 1926 then it is binding even where there is no notice
• If created after 1926 then it needs to be registered as a D(ii) land charge in order to bind

• Must have jurisdiction to hear the case
• Must be indenendant to the parties concerned
• Does not matter if the member state does not class them as a court or tribunal, only that is it recognised for its decision making function
  • Broekmeulen v Huisarts Registerartie v Commissie [1981]
    • The medical committee was held to be a court/tribunal dispite not being recognised as such by dutch law therefore able to make a preliminary reference

Own up to the halfway point

Quicquid plantatur solo, solo credit

• Art 267 TFEU
• Enables members to request the ECJ provide a binding ruling on the interpretation or validity of an EU legal act, while, in principle, leaving the application to the national court.

Law of Property Act 1925, s.205(1)(ix)

11)

What case illustrates the situation where a house is sold subject to the occupation of another?

what are the facts?

Binnions v Evans

it was agreed that Evans could occupy for the rest of her life and the house was subsequently sold subject to her occupation. All three of the judges agreed that they could not throw Mrs Evans out under a constructive trust.

5)

Under what section to PE interest bind subsequent parties?

9)

What duration are leases terminable on death or marriages?