Daily Archives: April 7, 2015

English land law cases beginnign with O

Standard

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.

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

Advertisements

English Land law cases beginning with N

Standard

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.

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

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

English Land law cases commencing with P

Standard

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

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

English land law cases commencing with M

Standard

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.

Lloyd’s Bank plc v Rossett

Standard

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.

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

Englush land law cases beginnign with K

Standard

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

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

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

English land law cases beginning with J

Standard

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.

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

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