Oxley v Hiscock.
2004 this is a case. This is about constructive trusts and quanitificaiton.
Mrs Oxley owned a house. Her boyfriend was Hiscock and they bought a house together. She paid less than him. Both contributed to household costs
The court held that Oxley was entitled to 40% . This was not arising on the basis of their original contributions
The questions were was there a constructive trusts and what was the quanificataion
Each is enttiled toa share accoridng to what the court considers just with regard to the entire course of dealing
This take into a ccount the payments for the purcahse and all other household expenses.
National Provincial Bank Ltd v Ainsworth
This is about someone’s interest in their home and licences
Someone living at home who was deserted does not ipso facto have an interst. construtive trusts
Mr and Mrs Ainsworth lived in a house with their wains
Ainsworth moved out. He got a laon for his business and gave the bank a charge on the house. He gailed to pa back. The bank sought possession of the domicile.
Lords said Mrs Ainsweitht’s did not have an interesr in the house anc ould not bind the bank. Her riight to remain in the house was personal. She had no right of irremovability.
Her rights were not defined and clear. The bank won.
Nielson Jones v Fedden
1975 – co ownership/
There was a breakdown in the relationship. There was a a memorandum whereby the male had the right to chose to sell the house or not and if so to use the proceeds to purchse a residence for himself.
The judge said this document was about the proceeds of sale and not the ownrrship of the land. It was ambiguous.
The ownership was not severed said the court.
Parker v British Airways Board
This is from 1982.
Someone has the right to a chattel found on land. Court of Appeal
Parker found a bracelt in the airport. He handed it to BA saying if the oowner could not eb oudn to give it to him. BA sold it and reaied a tidy profit. Parker took them to court
The cpirt held that it was found in a public area. BAA did not exercise sfficient control over this zone for it to be their private property
Finders keepers is the rule assiming the true owner cannot be identified. The claimant must be honest and must not be a trespasser.
PETTIT against PeTTIT
This is a 1970 case. This is about the presumption of advancement. This is the spouses equitable interest.
Mrs Pettit used her money to buy a house. She hand her spouse lived there till she left him,
Hubby had done a lot of work on the house and claimed an interest in the land which was in ehr wife’s sole name
Mortgage Corp v Shaire.
This is a 2001 case touching TLATA
Mr Fox and Miss Shaire lived toegther. Fox died. It turned out he had forged Shaire’s sgnature to get a mortgage on the land
It was accepted that ninetheless the Mortgage Corop’s chagre was valid. The payments were defaulte don
Shiare arged that her interest came before that of the corp
The court held that TLATA turned tuersts for sale into trusts for land this was to ”tip the balance in favour of families and against banks.”
He said that the court could use its discretion and the inetersts of the landholders would not always prevail
The court held that Fox did not have a 50% share of the house – Shaire has not intended that. Fox had only 25%
the court conveted Shaire’s interest in the land into a laon she had to repay to the bank. If she failed then she could be turned out but the court would pause and consider the sotuation before ordering this.
This is a 1990 case about trusts
This established tha contribuignt the cost of running a house does not in itself establisha benefiial interesr
This seesm to be overturned by the later case oof Stack v Dowden. The law has progressed since that case
Mrs and Mrs Rossett purchased a house and did it up. Mr Rosset paid for it, all. Mrs Rossett did some of the work on the house
Mr Rossett took out a loan from Lloyds which he secured agains the thouse
Mr defaulted on the laon. The bank sought possession. Mrs said she had the right to stay and an overriding interest which trumped the banks rights. The bank argeud she had no overrriding interests nce her work on the house was insufficient to create a trust in her favour.
The Lords held that the woman had no beneficial interest in the property and her work thereupon was not enoyght ot make a trust for her. There were no dscussion about her ahaving trust
There was no express agreement about her having sshar ein the land
She has not signdiicantly altered her psosition nor had she acted to her detriment upon the faith of a trust for her. She has in fact gained by living there for free.
Llodys won the case. The judgment in this case has been panned. Many now hold that work on a house does create a trust for the person doing it.
Keeble v Hickeringhill
This is about beasts that are de ferae naturae
Keeble used tame ducks to entice wield ducks intoa trap.. He could then sell them. Hickeringhill fire dhis guna frw times to scare away the ducks.
Keeble won a case against the other for trespass. He was awarded the sum of 20 stelring
Hickerginhill fired the gun on his own land but towards Keeble”s land
Whhen someone dustrubs another land to reduce the landholders’s profit that is unlawful.
Kreglinger v New Patagonia Meat and Cold Storage Ltd
This is about buying sheepkinss. This accompanied a loan This frsuatretd the mortgagor’s right to pay the loana dn be free of it.
Kreglinger land the defendannts 10 000 stelring. In return they must only seel sheespksin to him or if tey sodl any to another person they must pay Kreglinger a commission for it.
The Lords held that the otopj to buy sheepskin was separte form the laond. The rule against clogs n the equit of redemptio are there to prevent unsocnsnabel contratcs This was conscionable
There is no rule with there being extar conditions attahced to a mortgage so long as these conditojns are not too harsh.
Kreglinger won his case
J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham.
This is a 2002 case which touches adverse possession/
Pye allowed Graam to use the land for grazing purposes. The agreement was specifically stated to end in 1983. However, when that date passed PPye did nothing to move Graham out. Pye wanted to develop the land.
After 12 years Graham said the land was his as he had sqatted with the owners’ nowledge but nt consent for the requisite length of time.
The Lords said Grahma owned the land. This is one of the last cases before the 2002 Land Registration Act kciked in.
The European Cpurt f Human Rights upheld the decision. Althoyh adverse possesion finrigne din porperty rights a little this was not so much as to be illegal.
J SPURLING LTD againat BRADSHAW
This is a 1956 case about bailments.
This case is well known becayse it contains Lord Dennings’ renowned red hand rule – he more onerous a term the more it needs to stressed. Therefor a very burdensome rule would need to be printed on the front cover in red in tk be lgeal
This is aboout chattels and not about realty. It is about the deliver of goods and damage thereto.