Search Results

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

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.

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

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

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

In such a case, equity would regard him as being estopped from asserting his own rights to ownership of the land. A simple example is to be found in the hypothetical case discussed

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

continue to be subject to the old rules (PAA 2009, s. 16). Therefore, it will be essential in each case to check exactly when the deed giving effect to the trust was created or the testator

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

sole-name cases, and 18.4 Joint-names cases 18.4 covers how the principles developed in these cases have been applied where the family home is jointly owned. 18.2 Sole-name cases: es

the two properties will adjoin one another (as is the case in all the practical examples given above) but this is not essential ( Pugh v Savage [1970] 2 QB 373). The two pieces of land