Yaxley v Gotts.

2000. Law of property miscellaneous provisions.

This is about written contracts and oral. This or events an oral contract taking effect where otherwise there would be proprietary estoppel.

Yaxley a builder tried to get Gotts to lend him money

Gotts bought the building instead but let Yaxley have the bottom floor for free in reutrn for Yaxley rennovating it and being ht caretaker

Yaxley did the work in his own time and at his own expense. Yaxleys said the oral agreement was that he owned the bottom floor.

Gotts did not convey deeds in Yaxleys name.

There was a falling out. To court

Judge listened mostly to Yaxley. The court found that there was an agreement and Yaxley had a 99 year lease

Gotts took the case to the court of appeal but lost.

Wrotham Park Estate Co Ltd v Parkside Homes Ltd

1974. contract

This is about the measure of damages. this can be in lieu of specific performance.

Parkside built houses in land in breach of a restrictive covenant.

Wrotham Park objected and then took legal action

The judge gave damages in lieu of specific performance. damages are measured as the amount that the plaintiff would have had to have been paid to have waived the restriction.

the judge refused to order the houses to be razed. the judge said the defendants argument that the had not reduce the value of the plaintiff’s land was worthless.

It would be wrong for the wrongdoers not suffer anything.

The damages are there to compensate the claimant for the house s not being knocked down. the court will look at hypothetical engitaiton. What would the plaintiff and the defendant have agreed if they had come to an agreement?

Wong v Beaumont Property Trust Ltd.

1965 case about easements.

Wong has a restaurant in  basement. He needed ventilation. lease said he must control all smells emanating therefrom. He must not cause a nuisance to the landlord or others.

The vent was insufficient. He needed a bigger flue.

There was an easement of necessity. The landlord has demanded something and made it impossible. Wong won.

There was a common intention and this  undergirds all easements of necessity as per Pwllbach

Winter Garden Theatre London Ltd v Millennium Productions Ltd

1848. This is about licences

A theatre promised millennium pridcuationn that they could use the threate for 6 months

There would be the otpion to renw for another 6 months. 300 pounds would be the flat weekly price therefater

Millennium would have to give a motnh;s notice oof they wished to quit

The threate ebentually decied to en the agrement and gave a month;s npptice// Millennium sad the theatre could onl do that f Millennium wa sin breach

The Lords said that Winter Graden threatre could revole te licence

A licence simply prevents someone from being a trespasser. Everyone knows licenes are conditional often on paying money and behaving

The theatre had given a reasoanble period of time for millennium to get out. Winter Graden Threate won

Williams v Hensman

This is an 1861 case about co ownership.

Moneys were bequueathed to be invested in stock. The principal was to go to bairns upon the death of the mother.

The eight children ageeed to the investment howeer three were children at the time.

A trustee advanced some money to one child. The others agreed not to ask the trustee to make up any deicionecy  in case there should be a shortfall.

Was the trust co owned as a joint tenancy?

The court hedl that it was a joint tenancy. The five had seveedit from the thtee.

The court said that a joint tenancy ca be severed by one party declaing that he wishes to perate independently. The right of surviviprship ius ascrescendi only operst where there has been no severance

ANyone can withdraw at any time but if he does so he loses any right of surviviprship/

joint tenancy can be severed by mutual agreemnt

sevrnracc enca be by a cours eod delaing wher eit is plain that the parties with so sever

this can be by implication.

Williams and Glyns Bank v Boland

1980. trust law. overriding interest

Mr and Mrs Boland lived in a house. The hubby borrowed money froma  bank to finance his business. Business went tits up.

The woman argued she had made financial contrubutions to buying the house and must be permitted to stay. The bank said she had no proprietary right. The bank argued the doctrine of conversion. she could get a shar eof money from the slae of the land but not the right to stay there,  Even if she had a priperty right it was not regustered and the bank had a rgeistered charge which trumped any right she purported to possess

The lack of registration argument has no merit if a party is in actual occupaiton. That woulg give her an overriding interest.

The bank said she could not be seen as being in actual occupaitons icne she c habited with her husband

The House of Lorss held for Mrs Boland. She was allowed to stay. She has a property right. Actual occupaiton are words to be understood in the ordinary sense.

The rights of a spouse under a tryst of sale can be an overriding interesrt.  Lord  Denning presiding

Lord Wilberforce also heard the case. They took into account the social relaity. The goodwife’s interest was not a mere minor interest

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

English land law cases beginning with W

Westminster city counvul against Duke of Westminster/

This is a 1990 case. The 2nd duke had rented the flat for a peppercorn rent – a shilling – so they could be used to house the working classes and for no other reason

The council rged that working class was now meaningless and they should be allowed to sell lease to anyone. The 6th duke objected.

Homes for votes. Tories narrowly held Westminster council. Dame Shirley Porter came up with a secret homes for votes policy. They wanted to get rid oof low rent tenants. Social housing people ere probably Labour people.  Bring in richer people more likely to be Conservative

The councl sold long term tenancies for 30% of their market value. People could buy the flats very cheaply and then sell them on ata  huge profit.

Duke of Westminster offered a compromise – t 0 llow 10% of the houses to be sold for long term leases

The court found that the working class existed. The duke has been generous in the 1930s by leasing the flats to the counvil cheaply so they could house the working class. It was wrong of the council to now explot the duke’s generosity

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

Wheeldon v BUURROWS

This is abot grant easements. 1879. This case set up one of three ways of establighin a grant eaement. This was later formalised by the Law of Propety Act 1925

Allen owned a workshop and land. He sold the workship to Burrows and the land to Wheeldom. The workship got light from the land.

Mr Wheeldon died. His wife built on the land. This blocked the light to Burrows’ worshop. Burrows  dismataled the consturction and said he had the right do so so isnce he needed light

The judge said the seller had not reserved such a right.

Easements are only impieied when they are necesssry too the njoyment of a piece of land.

If someone resvers a right be must do so expressly. A grantor cannot derogate form his right

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

WHITE v WHITE

This is a 2000 case. There wa s divorce. It touches the redistributoon of finances. This case establoshed that the poorer party in a divorce must have more than their bare needds provided for. Absolute euqlaity in division of the assets is no essential.

Pamela White and her husband Martin were married for 39 years. They had a farm and aseets of 4.5 million stelring

They farmed separately before maryring.

The Lords favoured a clean brreak – put the past behind you. The Matrimonal Causes Act 1973 is very pertinent. A court can order a property to be sold so that they money can be divided.

English law is generous to the poorer spouse. So London is the divorce capital od the world

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

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

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

English land law cases beginning with the letter V.

Vernon against BETHELL

1762. There shall be no clog on the equity ot redemption

This laid down the rule ”once a mortgage , always a mortage”\

the judge further observed ”necessitous men are not free men. They will agree to any terms the craftu lay for them.”

Major Vernon wished to pay off debts to Mr Bethell’s state and and recover a sugar plantation in Antigaua.

Vernon had borrowed money onn the security of the land. He also sold sugar to Bethell

There was correspondence between the two men. Vernon was eager to pay his debt and was willing to do so if Bethell would desist from making unjust claims to Vernon’s land

Lord Henley said there could be no clog on th equity of redemption. A man has the right to pay off his debt. The mortgage eists for that purpose and not sao tha mortgaggee can gain more land. Bethell had made it unduly difficult for the debtor to pay

Bethell tried to turn the security for a loan into a v cheap purchase for him.

The mortgagee is not allowed to set onerous conditions to seek to preven the equity of redemptp being discharged.

It is within the mischief rule to sto mortgagees from making it impossibl for mortgagors ti reover their land. Palrimanet set up the law to avoid ths mishcief.

Vernon won.

=================================\\

VERRALL v GREAT YARMOUTH BC

1981. This is about the council renting some room for the National Front to hod a meeting. Laboyr then won the council and revked the NF;;s licence. Verrall sued on behalf of the NF

Denning found for the NF. It was wrong fro the councul to cancel the licence because they disliked the NF. The NF had made their arrangeements.

The repudiators cannot be allowed to just pay damages. The licence must be honoured. The NF had made arrangements for the conference.

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

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

Tulk v Moxhay

This is an exceedingly famous case. It dates to 1848. It touches on a famous tenement. This piece of land os now known as Leicester Square.

This is about when a restrictive covenantn shall run with the land be binding on future purchasers

Tulk owned land and sold it in 1818. There was the stipulation that it not be hult upon. The land changed hands sevral times. The evntual own knew of the covnenant but refusd eoot abide by it. He claimed that it was not cincumebt on him to oobe it since there was ni privty of contract.

Lord Cottenham ruled in favour of the plaintiff and issued an injunction restraining Moxhay from erecting edifices upon the said parcel of land.

This case was in equity. A restriction would run. If the plaintiff has sought damages he would have lost.

The price was affected by the restriction. It would be inequitable for a man to purchase land cheaply becuase of the restrivit covenant and then be able to seel it the next day at a higher price because that restriciton was suddnely invalid.

For covenants to run there covenant must originally be between a land lord and tenant. This is horizontal privity.

The coovenant must be restrictive

at the date of the covenant the convenantor (who set the ovenant) must own land benefitted thereby

the origianl parties intende the burdeto run with the land and be binding upon future owners

the covenantee mjst take the land with notice of the covenant

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