Land Registration Act 2002, section 116
equity by estoppel and mere equity do bind the successors in REGISTERED land. The situation with unregistered land may be different.
=======================================================================================================
Law of Property Act 1925, section 205
This is a list of terms. It states what bankruptcy is. It mentions death duties. It lists the ways land can be transfers by various legal documents.
========================================================================================================++
Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, section 2
This says that sales of land must be by writing that is signed and includes all the terms. Leases of under three years do not require these formalities but they might use such formalities.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Law of Property Act 1925, section 1(2)
This says what rights can be created in law over land rather than in equity over land.
The only ones that can exist in law are an easement, freehold estate in fee simple absolute in possession, rentcharge, a mortgage, a term of years and right of entry.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Land Registration 2002, Schedule 3, paragraph 2
A person who is in occupation of land at the time of disposition can have an overriding interest in that land provided that this occupation would have been evident upon a fairly careful look over the land or if the person was asked if he had any interest in the land he truthfully declared it.
The purchaser will not be bound by those who acted fraudulently. The idea is to be fair to a purchaser.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Here you should attempt in one or two sentences to outline the main points to be taken from these cases and also 3 or 4 key words with their subject matter. This should assist in revision.
Thorner v. Major [2009] UKHL 18
Thorner worked on his second cousin’s farm for many years. He was paid and given board. He was assured by hos cousin that he would inherit the farm. There was no written will to this effect. Statute gave the famr to Major – a closer relative. Thorner’s cousin had told Thorner to save some money to pay yhe death duties – yet another piece of evidence that both persons intended Thorner to inherit the said land.
This case went all the way to the House of Lords. Lord Hoffman ruled in favour of Thorner. He said that the fact that this was not written into a proper will was immaterial. Would a reasonable man have relied on such terms? The judge ruled that the man on the Clapham Omnibus would have done so. Thus Thorner inherited the famr under proprietary estoppel.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ashburn Anstalt v. Arnold [1989] Ch 1
This case concerns a property on Gloucester Road in Kensington. It establishes that rent is not needed for a tenancy to be created. The landlords tried to call it a licence but it turned out to be a tenancy. The doctrine here about the term of the tenancy – as in duration – has since been overturned.
There was an occupation agreement. This became an overriding interest. This went all the way to the Lords. Actual occupation worked in favour of Arnold. A trust was not created which Arnold had sought.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Cobbe v. Yeoman’s Row [2008] UKHL 55
Cobbe went to great trouble and expense to get planning permission and build some flats in London. Mrs Lisle-Mainwaring encouraged him to do so. She got cold feet about the deal but urged him to go on and deceived him.
She then tried to pull out of the deal and demanded money. A contract had not been made binding.
Cobbe sued her. He claimed proprierary estoppel. The court said there was none. They gave him money for unjust enrichment and professional fees. Cobbe did not acquire any proprietary rights.
This case went to the House of Lords.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
King v. David Allen Billpostings [1916] 2 AC 54
Third parties are not bound by a licence. King owned a cinema. King granted a licence to David Allen Billpostings to put posters up on the wall. Then King let out the cinema to someone else. The tenant refused to let David Allen Billposting affix their posters to the wall. David Allen was able to win an action against King but not against the tenant. King should have ensured that hsi tenant honoured the agreement. The tenant could not be penalised though.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Lloyd v. Dugdale [2002] 2 P & CR 13
Dugdale was occupying premises. He had a sublease from the previous lessee. There was a licence for Dugdale to story stuff there and do work. Lloyd won the case. Lloyd’s conscience was not affected – there was not proprietary estoppel.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Must the detriment suffered by a claimant in cases of proprietary estoppel be motivated by the assurance?
No, it does not have to be so the detriment is irrelevant to the assurance.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Show Answer
What was the detriment suffered in Gillet v. Holt?
Failure to get a job somewhere else. In this case Gillett got lower earnings than he otherwise would have done. Gillett met Holt when Gillet was aged 12 and Holt was 38. Gillett became a caddie for Holt and then a labourer on his farm. He worked for hOLT for decades on the faith of an interest in property,
Calers's Blog 