Book

Essential Cases: Land Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. Essential Cases provides you with succinct summaries of some of the landmark and most influential cases in land law. Each summary begins with a review of the main case facts and decisions. The summary is then concluded with expert commentary on the case from the author, Aruna Nair, including her assessment of the wider questions raised by the decision.

Book

Essential Cases: Land Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. Essential Cases provides you with succinct summaries of some of the landmark and most influential cases in land law. Each summary begins with a review of the main case facts and decisions. The summary is then concluded with expert commentary on the case from the author, Aruna Nair, including her assessment of the wider questions raised by the decision.

Chapter

the ‘essential’ facts of existing case law, we can categorise different land registration disputes according to their core components. Then, when a problem question or new case emerges

Chapter

proportionate’. 21 In other words, the essential question was whether an individual proportionality assessment was required in every case, or whether it could be assumed that the

Chapter

that a knowledge of how they work in practice from existing case law is essential. Appreciating the rich tapestry of this case law is crucial to a robust analysis of the doctrines.

Chapter

estoppel in the case was an interest in some senses, akin to a trust, 102 in the sense that it related to a family home-type case. Thus, per Walker LJ: ‘[t]he essential distinction is

Chapter

we are in a confident lending market may well be one of the essential keys to economic recovery’. 46 Thus, from this case we can conclude that not only can a lender sell without a court

Chapter

was historically the case) and particularly in the commercial context, the lease/licence distinction still carries real weight. 9.3.2 Second essential element: ‘For a certain

Chapter

ownership cases was ‘neither consistent with principle nor sound policy’. 33 We must therefore examine joint and sole cases quite discretely. As Figure 6.4 depicts, the essential difference

Chapter

rights, is a case involving the principle at all, even though it is said to be the foundational case for that principle! Key case: Halsall v Brizell [1957] Ch 169 This case involved

Chapter

the line should be drawn. What this case emphasises is that the fact of being in adverse possession for the required time is absolutely essential, whatever the response of the land registry

Chapter

profits is very narrow here, as shown by the case Mitchell v Potter. 100 Key case: Mitchell v Potter [2005] EWCA Civ 88 In this case, the claimant was a farmer who had a right

Chapter

a ‘reasonable’ height. This emerged in the case of Bernstein. 5 Key case: Bernstein of Leigh v Skyviews [1978] QB 479 In this case, Skyviews were a company which flew over the

Chapter

consideration of case AG Securities v Vaughan and Antoniades v Villiers. 7 Key case: AG Securities v Vaughan and Antoniades v Villiers [1990] 1 WLR 766 These two cases were addressed

Chapter

become an essential part of the design of the house and grounds, then they can become part of the land even if they have not been physically attached to the land but, in the case of a large

Chapter

may well rest on the tenant. But there is a difference between that case and the case where there is an essential means of access , retained in the landlord’s occupation, to units in

Chapter

interest has been met, the equity is satisfied because an essential element of the claim has been removed. In those rare cases in which the expectation interest is less valuable, it will

Chapter

This point is emphasised in Helden v Strathmore Ltd.9 Key case: Helden v Strathmore Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 452 This case highlights the important point that section 2 Law of Property

Chapter

by the court in that case has been case into doubt by what was HM Adjudicator in Rosefair v Butler. 86 Key case: Halifax v Popeck [2008] EWHC 1692 This case concerned a fraud

Chapter

by referring to a number of cases, that it is quite simply untrue as a matter of case law that nuisance only involves direct interference. Of the cases he cites we have already mentioned