Monthly Archives: November 2014

Names for pupils

Standard

You cannot remember their names? How about these soubriquets.

Dippy, Drippy, Hippy, Lippy, Nippy, Quippy, Snippy, Mister Whippy and Yippy. [I could not say ]

Breezy, Cheesey, Deasy, Me-sey, Kneesy, Pleasey, Sleazey, Sneazey, Queasy, Teasey, Wheezey and Japanesey. [ had to leave out Easy in case people misunderstood]

Botty, Dotty, Grotty, Lotte, Knotty, Potty, Spotty, Whatie, Yachtie. [Had to omit Hotty lest people get the wrong notion]

 

There are some feeble rhymes I came up with but ultimately elected to exclude such as ‘rotty’. These words must mean something faintly droll.
======================

SCHOOL REVOLUTION.

 

In a comic play the pupils devise means of executing the teachers in apposite ways.

Dissolve the chemists. Hang the Physicists. Divide the Mathematicians. Poison the Biologists. Abduct the Spanish teachers. Guillotine the French teachers. Gas the German teachers. Crucify the chaplains. Feed the classicists to the lions. Behead the historians. The English teachers will commit suicide. The Japanese teachers will do a kamikaze attack. The Drama teachers will all die on stage.

 

 

A dream of topless French girls.

Standard

I had my skinny French chum around yesternight. We put away a bottle of red together.

Abed I dreamt of being in France – most probably Paris. In my dream I was walking a cobbled but not a narrow street at night. A short, coarse old Frenchman offered to take me to a bordello. I declined. Another GFrenchman of similar grade later made another such offer. I gruffly refused. I was so brusque he was minded to hit me but taking account of my size he chose not to.
Later I saw some lubricious French girls. All of them had long mid brown hair. They were inside and it was bright. They all wore black silk thongs. They were topless. They were in their early 20s and all of them were slender – more so than I usually like. They had alabaster skin. Their boobs were small but very firm and upright. They were pouty too. I awoke rock hard.

English Land Law: Even more cases.

Standard

Bristol west building society . henning. 1985.
Mr Henning lived with a woman and sired two children by her. He bought a house in his name. The woman made financial contribution to ti.

Then they decided to move to Devons. A new house was purchased with a mortgage. In the mortgage application he said that the female was his wife and the house was to be a family home. The woman did physical work on improviong the house.

He left in 1981 – the relationship being over. Later that year he began a lawsuit to regain the house. He admitted that the female was entitled to half the house.

He stopped paying the mortgage. The building society sought to possess the house. Henning did not resis tthis cause.

Th ebuilding society said that the woman had a licence to be there.

Lord BrownE Wilkinson said that the woman had more thant his. She had no beneficial interest in the property. There was no constructive trust. The buiding society took priority over her.

He sad that the building society knew that Mrs Henning was involved in getting the mortgage even though her name was not on any document.

The crucial point os the couple could not have got the house without the bank. The couple were thus accepting the bank had priority voer them. There was no time whent he woman was in sole actual occupation.

This is the same principle as Abbey National Building Society v Cann
==================================================

CITY OF LONDON BUILDING SOCIETY V FLEGG. 1987

tHIS IS about overriding interests and overreaching interests.

Interests that had previouslt been thought to override could be overreached.

Some doubt whether Flegg will stand in the light of the ECHR because one is allowed peaceful enjoyment of one;s possessions and also family life.

Mr and Mrs Flegg bought a house. They sold their old house to finance this. Their daughter and son in law were

==================================================

MIDLAND BANK PLC V COOKE

this is a case about a constructive trust. It dates to 1994.This case proves that if someone contributes to the purchase of a home that person may be greater than the share of the money e y that they provided.

The Cookes  a couple bought a house.

They later replaced the mortgage with a mortgage from Midland bank to guarantee an overdraft for their business.

Mrs Cooke signed a form agreeing to postpone her interest until the bank’s had been satisfied.

Mr Cooke took the property as sole legal owen.

Undue influence was at play. Mr Cooke admitted at trial that Mrs Cooke’s futute entitlement was never discussed.

The judge ruled that Mrs Cooke had come interest in the property. Some of the money had been from a wedding gift for the original purchase. This wedding gift was for her as much as her husband

The Court of Appeal held that there was a commin intention for their to be a beneficial interrst for both persons.

The whole course of dealing did and not just thst financial contribution.

The bench said that young couples do not speak about future financial entitlesments and they should not be beyond equitys assistance because of this.

The person gave only 6% of the value of the house.

=======================================

COBBE V YEOMAN’S ROW MANAGEMENT

This is a 2008 case in the House of Lords about proprietary estoppel.

Cobbe said that Yeonman’s Row Management encouraged him to expend much monies on seeking planning permission t of a certain property.Cobbe argued that the defendants should not be allowed to escape from paying the orally agreed price they would pay for the said property.

Yeoman urged Cobbe to continue with his worl.

The court ruled in favour of Cobbe. They awarded him money. There was unjust enrichment. A financiual award was made in favour of Cobbe.

Proprietary estoppel did not operate here but it was defined by the cCourt of Appeal.

================================================

DILLWYN V LLEWLLYN

This is a father and son case. The father promised the son a house. This was in writing but  a deed was not executed. The son spent money upon the faith of such an assurance.

The highest court in the land found that the son was entitled to full legal conveyance.

This case is from 1862.

============================================

Crabb v ARUN DISTRICT COUNCIL

A farmer sold land to the council. He was assured before the sale that eh could keep a path across the land. The council essayed to renege on this promise.

This is about proprietary estoppel. The council was rhen forbidden so to do.

Lord Denning was involved in this one. He found in favour of the plaintiff Crabb

==========================

=============================================

English land law. Yet more cases.

Standard

Gissing v Gissing. They were a married couple and they had a child. His adultery ended the marriage. This is a case from 1970. He paid the mortgage but she made other financial contributions to the family.
This went all the way to the House of Lords.

It was held that she had no equitable interest in the house. Just because she had spent money on household bills would not give her a resulting trust or constructive trust. There was no reason to rebut the prime facie presumption that the sole owner was the one on the title deed. otherwise every spouse would have this equitable right. Even setting up a joint bank account would be enough to get this.
===============================

Stack v Dowden.

This overrules Gissing v Gissing.

There was a cohabiting couple. Their relationship broke down. Who gets what?

They bought a house together. This purchase was partly funded by Miss Downde selling another house that she had bought on her own.

It was not stated what proportions of the house they owned but Miss Dowden paid 65% of the price.

Relationship broke down in 2002. A court said Miss Dowden could keep it but must pay for Mr Stack’s alternative accommodation.

Stack said he should have 50% of the house

 

The court said that the couple were joint tenants. The court said that Mr Stack’s improvements to the house counted in his favour in this case. He had put time and money into the property and increased its value.

Baroness Hale said the onus is on the person who wants to establish a beneficial interest to show why this should be. Why should the legal ownership be defeated?

The couple kept their interests rigidly separate.

The court said everything will be taken into account: the couple’s intentions, children they raised, who had responsibility for the saucepan lids, contributions to the purchase etc…

Stack’s appeal was dismissed. The house was divided 65;35 in favour of Dowden.

This case is different from Lloyd’s Bank v Rossett where a constructive trust was set up.

==============================

LLOYDS BANK PLC V ROSSETT

tHIS IS a case from 1990. Mr and Mrs Rossett bought a house. They used the man’s family trust money. The trustees insisted that he be the sole owner of the house.

The wife made improvements to the house by her labour but did not pay money towards these.
Mr Rossett took out a loan from Lloyds using the house as security. The wife knew nothing about this.
Hethen defaulted on the loan.
The bank looked ti take the house.

The wife said she should not be turned out of the house – she had a beneficial interest in it so she claimed.
The wife lost her case.

Contributing to the house does not establish a beneficial interest. He abandoned the house. He cashed in a life insurance policy.

================================

JONES V KERNOTT 2011.

tHis is a case where an unmarried couple lived together and had two children. Miss Jones paid for the house but Mr Kernott did a lot of work on it. They split up. Kernott left the family. He ceased to make child maintenance payments.

The Supreme Court divided the property with 90% going to the female Jones and 10% to the male Kernott.

A constructive trust was awarded. Common intention was imputed.

====================================

==================================

Morells of Oxford Ltd v Oxford United FC

Standard

tHIS IS a 2001 case touching covenants.

Morells sought to enforce a covenant that prohibited Oxford United from opening a pub within half a mile of them. Morrells argued that a previous agreement bound the successors and the successors were Oxford United.

The agreement did not explicitly say that this part of the covenant was to pass to a successor. The judge said it could not be assumed that this covenant was binding on successors. The court found for OXFORD United. A pub was opened.

 

Leading cases in English Land Law.

Standard

Abbey National v Cann

This is a 1990 case. It is about equitable interest. This is about what constitutes actual occupation. The court held that actual occupation entails a considerable degree of permanence. The bank’s right over the property in a repossession case defeated the equitable interest of the person occupying the property.

George Cann bought a house. His mother Daisy Cann contributed some money to the purchase. Then George Cann bought another house and used a loan from Abbey National to do so. George Cann used the first house as security for the loan that enabled him to buy the second property.

Mr Cann later failed to keep up payments. Abbey National sought repossession of the first home. Daisy Cann was living there. She had just moved in carpets – 35 minutes before the deal was completed. Daisy argued her equitable rights entitled her to stay in the house. She had prior possession. There was a scintilla temporis between her moving in and the deal being sealed. The court held this scintilla temporis – sliver of time – was too trifling to bother with. It was de minimis.
Daisy was turfed out. The bank got the house. This has been castigated as favouring the mighty voer the puny

===========================

Earl of Oxford’s case.

Equitable principles take priority over law. This was established in 1617.

Magdalen College Cambridge bought land. They sold it to Elizabeth I. She then sold it to one Spinola being a Genoese.

A court laid down that a college could not sell land to people for more than 21 years. People had assumed that purchasing land from the queen meant that the purchaser owned it totally.

John Warren ended up leasing the house. Warren argued that statute was on his side. The statute said that the college’s land was there to fund education and could not be leased for more then 21 years or three lifetimes – whichever expired sooner.

Warren was not entitled to eject Smith.

The college had sold the land to Smith.

 

Lord Ellesmere was the judge. This case was also heard by the King. He confirmed that equity would defeat common law. A statute had said that the college’s land could not be leases for more than 21 years but this was defeated.

============================

Seisin. This is now called freehold. It is from the old French for ”to set”. This is as close to absolute ownership of land as one can get in the common law system.

===============================

 

Pettitt v Pettitt 1970

Lord Diplock heard this case.

Husband and wife lived in a property. The wife had paid for it. She left her husband. The husband said he had carried out many improvements to the property. He wanted to stay in the house.

This is about a spouse’s equitable interest in the matrimonial home.

The judge said it would be a mistake to apply the law of an earlier epoch to this one.  So who won?

I think he was saying that one has to look at intention. The husband had informally acquired an equitable interest in the house

=========================================

European Convention on Human Rights Article 8 says that one has the right to family life.

Banks can repossess homes of people who default on loans. The courts will take into consideration the welfare of children living in the home. The court might say the bank can seize the home but not until a certain period of time has elapsed. This will allow the children to grow up a bit more and give the family time to find a new place to live.

 

===================================

Property rights (rights in rem) bind third parties.

Personal rights (Rights in personam) do not bind third parties.

 

=======================================

 

Hill v Tupper is an 1863 case.

 

Basingstoke Canal Co gave Mr Hill an exclusive right to hire out boats to people on the canal

Tupper started a business doing the same thing on the canal.

Hill brought a lawsuit to stop Tupper doing this.

 

Pollock CB found in favour of Tupper. It was up to Basingstoke Canal Co to stop Tupper. Hill could not do so.

There was no easement here. An easement is for the benefit of land. Hill was trying to benefit his business.

”A new incorporeal hereditament cannot be created at the pleasure of the plaintiff.”

=============================

People cannot create property rights willy nilly. This is numerous clausus.

=====================================#

This is what Lord Wilberforce said about admitting new proprietary rights.

Before a right or an interest can be admitted into the category of property, or of a right affecting property, it must be definable, identifiable by third parties, capable in its nature of assumption by third parties, and have some degree of permanence or stability.

==========================================

William’s and Glyn’s Bank v Boland.

There was a house owned by MR Boland. It was security for a loan. He failed to pay up and the bank moved to possess the house.

Mrs Boland did not know that her husband had put the house up as collateral for the loan. She was not on the title deeds. She had made financial contributions to the house. The court of Appeal and the House of Lords held that she did occupy the house and had an interest in it. This bound the bank and she was allowed to stay in the house.

This was a sea change in English law. Templeman  – at first instance – had said that the woman occupied the house only through her husband and this had no legal value. Lord Wilberforce rejected the earlier view that a wife was a mere shadow of her husband and her being in the house was not occupation. Lord Wilberforce said that the 1925 Land Registration Act must be interpreted literally. She lived in the house so she occupied it.  She was held to have an overriding interest in the house.

===============================
Chhokkar v Chhokkar. 1984
This couple owned a house. The husband bought it. The wife contributed almost a third of the money.
The marriage broke down.

The man tried to sell the house to his friend Palmer. Palmer signed the purchase deed dated 19 February a date when the wife was giving birth in hospital. The idea was so that the wife could not prevent the sale.

The house was sold at a below market price to Palmer – 12 000. He immediately put it on the market for 18 000.
The wife came out of hospital and tried t get back into the house. The locks had been changed. She managed to break in. Palmer assaulted her and threw her out.

The court found for the wife. She was held to be in occupation of the house even though she was in hospital for a while.
Palmer had been a sharpster and so had the husband. The wife had also perjured herself in the witness box. But she was held to have an equitable interest in the house.

=====================================

==========================
 

 

A dream of Mary, Heathrow, the US Embassy and things.

Standard

I was having dinner with members of my family. My sisters and nieces were there. I do not think anyone else was. I reminisce about my eldest niece a lot. I was so close to her when she was a toddler. It is too painful to think much about my child from whom I am separated. So she is a good proxy. I do not think of her as she is now because she is too grown up. When she was a little cherub she and I were good friends.

Anyhow then this turned into having dinner with Mary. She is a woman in her 60s and is unwell. Her son Reilly was telling me about it yesternight. Then Mary was taken ill with a gut problem. I left the restaurant and went elsewhere.

Then I walked along a street. I saw the fence of the US Embassy. It did not look like any US Embassy I know. It was not high up it was very effective with razor wire at the top. Then on the other side of the street I saw Heathrow.
I went into a building adjoin the embassy. I walked upstairs and into a café. I looked out at all the plans landing at the airport and departing. Ia m thinking of my own departure. Reilly told me of his father;s bad health news. That possibly explains my rveer.