Search Results

Appeal held that detrimental reliance remains an essential requirement for establishing such a trust in both sole and joint name cases, suggesting that the authority of Rosset on this

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

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

proprietary estoppel cases into two broad categories—commercial cases, where the expectation of the parties was generally to acquire a contract, and domestic cases, where the expectation

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.

book, but we will mention it when we start to examine the essential characteristics of a lease—partly because most of the cases arose in situations in which landlords were trying to avoid

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

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

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

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

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

particular case, they determined that the parties should each be responsible for half of the costs of the repairs. The case therefore leaves much room for dispute in any future case in which

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

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

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

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

question on leases is to read the case of Street v. Mountford in its entirety. It is not a long case, and will really help you to understand both the essential requirements of a lease and