Oral does not count. That is what my headmaster taught me.
I asked my parish priest what the Church’s position is on paedophilia. He said, ”We have a very clear principle on that. Never admit it.”
Last time I saw my obese Anglican vicar mate he was striding down Victoria Street sporting a full bottom wig, a monocle, a pair of thigh high red leather boots, a skin tight T shirt bearing the legend ”if you got it – flaunt it” and a ppair of black leather thongs with a gold zip. What a way to dress to conduct a Sunday morning service.
between holders of interests in unregistered land. However, it is clear that ideas of notice have no place in priority rules provided by LRA 2002.”
Yes, the doctrine of notice still plays some role in certain cases. The principle is that someone should know what he is buying. A purchaser ought to be able to look at the Land Register and see what other interests exist on it as easements, leases, mortgages and so forth. This s the mirror principle – that the Land Register should be a complete reflection of all intererss in land. However, the mirror is broken since some things are not shown thereupon. There is also the curtain principle which partly obscures the mirror principles since some inerers that exist behind a trust are delibertaley kept off the regsiter. The doctrine of notice therefore does not apply to reistered land and that is about 90% of land.
SOme purcahsers are equitys darling – the purchaser of legal etstae in land for value without notice. Such a man can overreach any interests in land. There can be no overriding interests that shall defeat his iinterest.
ABout 10% of land in England Wales is unregistred. The doctrine of noitce plays more of a role here.
A buyer is advised to make a reasonably careful inspection of the land he is hbuying. He will see if anyone is oon occupation asa tenant, as a licensee as an advers ppossessor or is someone has an esamnet perhaps. If these inetrets are reasonaby discoverbale then he will be bound by them. If he does not make a fairly careful inspeciton tent yat is his fault. It goes back to the equitbale mxim – caveta emport. Byer beware. One should also look at tje Land Charges regsuer tos ee no one had rgeisterd an interst such as being amortagee or having an easmeent over the said land. A buyer needs to alsot ask the vendor about these things. An honest answer shoduld reveal anything. If the vendor fails to dosclose then he sall be liabsl ein damages
The doctirne of notice certianly plays a role in porietuty disputes in unreguestred land.
Their friend Nat allowed them to live in a house on his estate Downturn and used some of the field for them to raise their pigs.
In return Nat charged them a nominal fee.
Nat died in 1990. His entire estate went to Tom. He was a rich stockbroker who lived nearby. He became registered owner of Downturn. Tom did not want to move to Downturn he began to try to sell it. He tried to sell it to Zoe a property developer. Tom asked the couple to leave and take their pigs. Negotiations with Zoe broke down before the firm moved Tom to New York. Dick, Harriet and pigs statyed there. Dick wrote to Tm saying they would be interested in renting the property but heard nothing back
Over the next years Dick and Harriet put up fences. They replaced electric wiring on the cottage. They put in security tv and they padlock on the gate between the road and the fields wehre the pigs were
Tom returned to UK in 2014. He was furious to find them still there. He demanded they leave and now plans to sell the land for redevelopment. Dick and Harriet said no because they belive they have property rights.
Nat let these people onto his land as he saw it as licensees. He was doing them a favour. The nominal fee counted for nothing. However, they couply will argue that they had a lease as per Street v Mountford. They shall claim it is a sham to suggest otherwise and an artificial attempt to avoid them having a lease. Because they paid mpney even a nominal amount his is still rent. In Street v Mountford remmeber the amount paid was not the amount a court would have the tenants pay. Ok that is quite different since the tenant was paying too much. There seems to have been exclusive possession on the part of the couple and Street v Mountford makes this crucial.
Tom wanted them out. If they had a licence then he had the right to tell them to scoot. IIf it was a lease then it is more complex. It is registered land. hE might be equity;s darling. He is a legal purchaser for value however we are not told of he he had notice they were there. He is a strong case for wanting them off his land. If they are tenants then their lease would not need to be registered if it were for under 3 years. If it were over 7 years it would need to be to be protected. It could possibly be regusterd as a Class C iv land charge under the Land Charges Act. A lease of between 3 and 7 years could also be registerd to make it binding. They do not seem to have done any of these things and Nat would probably have prevented them from doing so.
Dick wrote to Tom offering to rent the land. He thus acknowledge Tom;s ownership but 12 years have passed since then.
Parleying with Zoe by Tom had zero effect.
They have not left the land. They are there without permission. Tom seems to have assumed they departed in 1990. They have become squatters. They can acquire adverse possession after 12 years. They have lived there openly. They have shown an intention to possess. They wish to exclude the world by putting a padlock on the gate. Their renovation of the house shows this. They do not simply wish to keep pigs in they want to exclude others.
If they wanted to keep the land after 10 years they could have applied for the land. Things were easier before 2002 when the new Land Registration Act was passed. It kciked in in 2003. In 2004 Tom returned. The new regime will prevail. They could have had the land by now. Tom could have objected and got it back because it is registered land. As they have not lodged a legal claim then Tom can have them out. It is that simple.