This chapter studies the trust of land, and how this legal structure is used to manage co-ownership of land. It first describes the nature of interests under a trust of land, and the rights and obligations for trustees and beneficiaries which arise as a result of the creation of such a trust. The chapter then details the different forms of concurrent co-ownership which can exist in relation to land, looking at joint tenancies and tenancy in common as well as the process of severance. Since co-ownership cannot exist without a trust, it is useful to have understood trusts generally before examining it as a tool to manage co-ownership situations. Finally, the chapter assesses the regulation of disputes between trustees, beneficiaries, and third parties. Partly these disputes relate to questions of priority, and so it is useful to read this chapter in conjunction with the previous one concerning the general priority rules.
Chapter
16. Co-Ownership
Chapter
8. Proprietary Estoppel
This chapter addresses proprietary estoppel, which is one of the land law doctrines which allows for the creation of rights in land without a written contract or other formal document. It arises when a person (the promisor) makes a promise to another (the promisee) in relation to their land, and then attempts to go back on that promise in circumstances where it was unfair to do so. Given the general policy of formality, with its associated benefits of certainty and clarity, one must consider the rules relating to proprietary estoppel from the perspective not only of when proprietary estoppel generates rights in land, but also why it does so. This is particularly important in relation to estoppel since it represents a general and potentially broad exception to the formality rules discussed in the fourth chapter. There are three forms of proprietary estoppel: estoppel by representation, estoppel by acquiescence, and estoppel by assurance or promise. The chapter then discusses the consequences of estoppel arising in terms of remedies and effects on third parties. It also examines the relationship between estoppel and formalities, and estoppel and constructive trusts.
Chapter
2. The distinction between legal and equitable interests
Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter distinguishes between legal and equitable interests in land. The intervention of equity in land law can be seen in two key areas: the development of new equitable interests in land, and the availability of equitable remedies to enforce interests in land. To be legal, the interest must be listed under s 1(2) Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA 1925) and certain formalities must be met in its creation, notably being granted by deed (s 52 LPA 1925). Where these formalities are not met, the interest may have equitable status instead, but only where equity can find a specifically enforceable valid contract to create the interest. All other interests in land can only ever be equitable (s 1(3) LPA 1925). The status of an interest in land as either legal or equitable traditionally determined the rules of enforcement of that interest against third parties: legal interests bound all third parties, whereas equitable interests would only bind third parties who were not bona fide purchasers for value of a legal estate without notice.
Chapter
17. Co-ownership and Priorities: The Defences Question
All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing able students with a stand-alone resource. This chapter deals with the priority rules applicable where co-owned land is sold or mortgaged. It concentrates on overreaching. It is theorized that s 27(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA 1925) provides the basis of overreaching. Other theories include that the basis of overreaching lies in the doctrine of conversion and the trustees’ powers of disposition. The chapter considers the preconditions for overreaching to take place and the practical division that arises between trusts with one and two (or more) trustees. The chapter explores the contentious question of the effect on overreaching where a transaction constitutes an intra vires or ultra vires breach of trust and the protection available to purchasers in those circumstances where a breach of trust precludes overreaching.
Chapter
13. Proprietary Estoppel
Estoppel is seen as having two main forms. In the law of contract, it is seen principally as having a defensive function, operating to modify the doctrine of consideration to prevent one party to a contract from fully enforcing his contractual rights against the other. This form of the doctrine, termed promissory estoppel, is seen traditionally as being defensive in nature: it is a shield and not a sword. In land law, by contrast, it has long been accepted that estoppel can operate directly to found a cause of action. When operating in this way, the doctrine is referred to as proprietary estoppel. This chapter discusses how a claim in proprietary estoppel is established, where a claimant relies upon an assurance to their detriment in unconscionable circumstances, as well as how a court decides how to satisfy the equity that arises in a successful claim—the question of remedy.
Chapter
17. Co-ownership and Priorities: The Defences Question
All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing able students with a stand-alone resource. This chapter deals with the priority rules applicable where co-owned land is sold or mortgaged. It concentrates on overreaching. It is theorized that s 27(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA 1925) provides the basis of overreaching. Other theories include that the basis of overreaching lies in the doctrine of conversion and the trustees’ powers of disposition. The chapter considers the preconditions for overreaching to take place and the practical division that arises between trusts with one and two (or more) trustees. It explores the contentious question of the effect on overreaching where a transaction constitutes an intra vires or ultra vires breach of trust and the protection available to purchasers in those circumstances where a breach of trust precludes overreaching. In doing so, possible third-party liability in knowing receipt and dishonest assistance, and the Supreme Court’s analysis in Byers v Saudi National Bank is considered.
