BRICKFIELDS ASIA COLLEGE

LAND LAW
REVISION 2022
Ms. Puvanal Sri
2022

Chapter Summary
 LAND LAW- REVISION 2022
Legal Estates: Freehold & Leasehold
REGISTERED LAND – CHECKLIST Legal Interest: Easements

 Property Rights OR Personal Rights? If Property Rights:

 Legal OR Equitable
 Protection – LRA 2002 Registration System

Property Rights OR Personal Rights:

Recognized by Common law or Equity:

Example: 1)Common Law: Street v Mountford : Lease,

Re Ellenborough Park: Easements

2)Statute: Section 205(1) LPA 1925, Section 1 LPA 1925, Section 54(2)
LPA 1925. - short leases

Legal OR Equitable

Formalities (LEGAL)

1) Deed- S.1 LP(MP) Act 1989 freehold covenant is an exception: made by deed but only equitable

2) Deed and Registration (if subject to compulsory registration)- check S.27 LRA 2002
a. S.1(1) LPA 1925 : Freehold & Leases (for more than 7 years)
b. S.1(2)(a) LPA 1925 : Easements (expressly created by writing(deed OR
contract)

3) Orally or by informal writing – Section 54(2) LPA 1925 - short leases for 3 yrs and below
(payment/rent must be given)
Formalities (EQUITABLE)

1) Deed alone used for leases more than 7 years

2) Agreement- must comply with S.2 LP(MP) Act 1989
3) Orally – by courts (Constructive Trust, Resulting Trust & PE)

Protection against a purchaser for value (S.29 LRA 2002)

1) Is the right subjected to compulsory registration: YES, then if registered, it is

protected
2) Is the right supposed to be protected by placing a NOTICE (Section 34 LRA 2002) OR
Restriction (Section 43 LRA 2002), if so registered, it is then protected
3) Is it an overriding interest under one of the provisions under Schedule 3 LRA 2002?
a) Schedule 3 para 1: legal leases for 7 years and below
b) Schedule 3 para 2: actual occupation
c) Schedule 3 para 3: legal easement (impliedly created)

1
 LAND LAW- REVISION 2022

ADVERSE POSSESSION- CHECKLIST

 Factual Intention possession

 Intention to Possess
 Other issues arising
 Registration RequirementS

FACTUAL POSSESSION
 Requires physical presence which demonstrates control or possession over land
(open & adverse)
 Case laws: Buckinghamshire CC v Moran; Pye v Graham (gate, lock), Powell v
McFarlene, Seddon v Smith(fence), Purbrick v Hackney (installing gate)

INTENTION OF POSSESS
 Adverse possessor must ‘intend’ to possess land deliberately. Buckinghamshire CC
v Moran; Pye v Graham

OTHER MATTERS ARISING

1.Future Development plans by owner

 The old position in Leigh v Jack (now overruled) required the adverse possessor to
act in a manner that is inconsistent with the intention of the adverse possession
 Pye v Graham: there is no such requirement even if the paper owner had reserved
the land for future developments
 Schedule 1 para 8(4) of the Limitation Act and Buckinghamshire CC v Moran has
effectively overruled the position in Leigh v Jack- implied licence no longer
presumed.

2. Letter given to quit the land will NOT stop time clocking in favor of squatter
 Full action of possession must be brought to evict the squatter. Edgington v Clarke,
Markfield Investments v Evans

REGISTRATION REQUIRMENTS

1.LRA 2002 13 Oct 2003

 Schedule 6 para 1 and para 2: procedure which needs to be complied with by
squatters in order to be registered as proprietor of the property
 Schedule 6 para 5: exceptions where squatter is registered as a proprietor after 10
years.
o Para 5(2) – Estoppel
o Para 5(3)- Some other reason – Crosdil v Hodder
o Para 5(4) – Boundary exception- Zarb V Parry

 Schedule 12 para 18 LRA 2002: If AP completed 12 years before the 2002 Act, he is
entitled to be registered as proprietor.

Schedule 6 para 7 : squatter wait for further 2 years and re-aaply to be registered as proprietor
(provided action has not been taken by2paper owner)
 LAND LAW- REVISION 2022

2. LRA 1925
 Limitation Act 1980 – applies to land registered before LRA 2002
 Section 75 LPA 1925 – Upon total of 12 years in possession, the registered owner
loses his title, becoming a bare trustee holding the land on trust on behalf of
squatter.
 Section 70(1)(f) LRA 1925- A successful squatter has an overriding interest

3. Unregistered Land
 Section 15 Limitation Act 1980 – the squatter must then remain in continuous
possession for 12 years. If he gives up possession and retakes the time will start to
run afresh.
 Section 17 Limitation Act 1980 – When a squatter has completed the limitation
period, the dispossessed owner’s right to recover land is barred and his title to the
estate is extinguished.
 Tichbourne v Weir: it was held that the squatter holds his own estate in the land
under a new title.

3
 LAND LAW- REVISION 2022

CO- OWNERSHIP (EXPRESS TRUST-: Severance) – CHECKLIST

Problem questions:

 Type of ownership in Equity – Joint Tenants OR Tenants in Common

 METHOD OF SEVERANCE (if any) - equitable title
 Governance of the Trust – TOLATA 1996

CO-OWNERSHIP: On legal title: 1) Joint tenants only: Section 36 LPA 1925

2) Only maximum 4 trustees on the legal title; Section 34(2)
Trustee Act 1925

TYPE OF OWNERSHIP: In equity – JT or TIC

Joint Tenant

 4 unities: 1) Unity of time 2) Unity of title 3) Unity of interest 4) Unity of possession

 If no words of severance it is presumed JT (Goodman v Gallant)
 Right of survivorship applies: the share of a JT passes to another JT

Tenant in Common

 Presumption of TIC : Eg, unequal contribution, investment property

 No right of survivorship applies : Property passes on will or intestacy

METHOD OF SEVERANCE: JOINT TENANT BECOMES TENANT IN COMMON

1) Notice in writing : Section 36(2) LPA 1925- (unilateral) sent to all JT’s, Section 196
LPA 1925 – notice deemed served if left at last known address and not returned
Williams v Hensmen methods
2) An Act operating upon the share - requires formalities to be complied with E.g
mortgage, sale of shares (disposing the shares- S.53(1)(c) LPA 1925) OR agreement to
sell (s.2 LP(MP) Act 1989)
3) Mutual agreement: JTs agreed to the agreed on terms
4) Mutual conduct: Dealing between parties. “Thinking in terms of shares’- conduct
demonstrating intention to be treated like a TIC

GOVERNANCE OF THE TRUST- TOLATA 1996

Section 12 – Beneficiaries right to occupy trust land

Section 13- Exclusion and restriction of the right to occupy: Rodway v Landy
Section 14- Application to courts
Section 15- Factors relevant in determining application under Section 14
a) Section 15(1)(a) – intention of the persons who created the trust
b) Section 15(1)(b) – purpose of which the property is held
c) Section 15(1)(c)- interest of any minor children
d) Section 15(1)(d)- interest of any secured creditor bank/financial institution

4
 LAND LAW- REVISION 2022

Case laws: Mortgage Corporation v Shaire; TSB v Marshall ; Edwards v Lloyds TSB; First
National Bank v Achampong; Williams v Williams; Bank of Ireland v Bell

If the trustee is declared bankrupt:

 Trustee in Insolvency takes over his share and applies under Section 14 for a n order
for sale.
 The factors relevant in determining whether an order for sale is to be made under
Section 335A Insolvency Act 1986. Cases: Dean v Stout; Re Bremmer

5
 LAND LAW- REVISION 2022

CO- OWNERSHIP (IMPLIED TRUST) – CHECKLIST

 Acquisition & Quantification of Beneficial Interest in the Property

 The doctrine of Overreaching. If overreaching fails:
 Overriding Interest – Schedule 3 paragraph 2 LRA 2002

Acquisition (1 Legal Owner) & Quantification (2 Legal owners) of Beneficial Interest in the
Property

 Acquisition: 1) Lloyds Bank v Rosset : Ld Bridge: arrangement, agreement &

understanding
 Midland Bank v Cooke,
 Oxley v Hiscock : To Acquire - follow Lloyds Bank v Rosset BUT
To Quantify – courts take into account “ whole course of
dealings between parties” to decide a fair share

 Quantification:
2) Stack v Dowden: Lady Hale & Lord Walker: commented on Lord Bridge approach
in LB v R being strict and outdated. Test: Infer from the parties conduct to
quantify/acquire shares. Note: Abbott v Abbott (PC) – applied this test to acquisition
3) Jones v Kernott : If courts cannot infer a share they may Impute it instead (courts
decide what they think fair) - confined to quantification for now

The doctrine of Overreaching

 Shares(%) converted into monetary payment(£) when payment is made to 2

trustees(legal title)
 S. 27 LPA 1925: purchase money paid from purchaser to 2 persons on the legal title.
 Effect: The shares (%)

Whether the shares binds the purchaser. Yes if :

Schedule 3 paragraph 2 LRA 2002:

1) An equitable interest in property

2) Actual occupation
3) Schedule 3 para 2 c(i) : Actual knowledge
4) Schedule 3 para 2 c(ii): Obvious on a reasonable careful inspection of land
5) Schedule 3 para 2(b): If enquiries are made it is disclosed if reasonable to disclose
(shares in property may override if Beneficial Interest owner did not disclose
because he/she had no knowledge he/she had shares)

TOLATA 1996: If eviction OR purchaser wants to make a sale

 Section 12
 Section 14 & 15

6
 LAND LAW- REVISION 2022

PROPRIETARY ESTOPPEL - CHECKLIST*D

 Taylor Fashions v Liverpool Victoria Trustees conditions

 PE & Formalities
 Remedies
 S.116 LRA 2002

 Taylor Fashions v Liverpool Victoria Trustees:

1. Assurance / Expectation
2. Reliance
3. Detriment
4. Unconscionability

 PE & Formalities:
o S.2 LP(MP) Act 1989
o Yaxley v Goots
o Cobbe v Yeoman Row Management Ltd

 Remedies
o The remedy must be proportionate to the detriment suffered.
o 2 types: 1) Expectation based (best) and 2) Reliance based (bare minimum to cover
detriment)
 In Wormall v Wormall (2004), the successful claimant was granted right to occupy the land
for a stated period and monetary compensation, but on appeal to the COA, her claim to
additional monetary compensation was dismissed. The time-limited right to occupy was the
minimum necessary to do justice between the parties.
 Dillwyn v Llewllyn, Pascoe v Turner, Bibby v Sterling (in all of these cases the successful
claimant was awarded a proprietary right in the land)
 Inwards v Baker, Matharu v Matharu and Parker v Parker (only a personal right was given
i.e. licence)
 Campbell v Griffin (claimant was given a charge of £35,000 over the property but was not
permitted to remain in possession)
 Jennings v Rice, Wayling v Jones (monetary compensation)

 Section 116 LRA 2002:

o Interest awarded under PE is an equitable property right : place a Notice –
Section 34 LRA 2002
o If fail to place a Notice , may rely on Schedule 3 paragraph 2 LRA 2002 if
claimant in actual occupation

7
 LAND LAW- REVISION 2022

LEASES: CHECKLIST

 Essentials of a Lease
 Exceptional situations where a lease will NOT exist.
 Creation of Leases
 Protection – LRA 2002

Essentials of a lease:

 Street v Mountford:
1) Exclusive possession: possession and control
2) Certainty of term: periodic tenancy included- weekly, monthly, annual payment
3) For a rent

Exceptional situations where a lease will NOT exist

 Generosity/Friendship or Familial reasons where no intention to create legal
relations between the owner and occupier: Heslop v Burns, Cobb v Lane
 Charity : Gray v Taylor; (Exception : Bruton v London Housing Quadrant Trust (non-
proprietary lease)
 Multiple occupiers and where terms of the agreement indicate a licence/sham
devices: Antoniades v Villiers; AG Securities v Vaughan
 Provision of services: Huwydler v Ruddy
 Where the occupier is a lodger e.g occupier in a hotel/bed and breakfast
 Employer/employee situation: Caroll v Manek
 Retention of keys : Aslan v Murphy- depends on the purpose of landlord retaining
the key

Creation of leases

Legal leases:
1) Leases for three (3) years or less will be legal whether created orally, by written
contract, or by deed [S.52(2)(d) and 54(2) LPA 1925]- most leases & periodic tenancy
(e.g week, month, quarter, annual) falls in this category. Fitzkristen v Panayi (2008)
2) Leases for more than three (3) years are required to be made by deed to be legal:
Section 52 LPA 1925 [S1 LP(MP) Act 1989]
3) Leases for more than seven (7) years must be create by deed and registered(Section
27 LRA 2002) in order for it to be a legal lease

Equitable leases:
1) If the short leases (3 years and below) does not fall under Section 54(2) LPA 1925
(best rent/no premium payment) or not made by deed (more than 3 years) – it
would qualify as an equitable lease if it made through a written agreement
complying with S.2 LP(MP) A 1989
2) Granted by proprietary estoppel- informally created(orally)

8
 LAND LAW- REVISION 2022

Protection – LRA 2002

Legal Leases:
1) More than seven (7) years: it must be made deed and also registered - (S. 27(2) LRA
2002): Protected by registration
2) If a lease is more than seven (7) years than failure to register (but made by deed
OR contract) means it will only be an equitable lease (estate) (S. 27(1) LRA 2002) :
Protected by Schedule 3 paragraph 2 LRA 2002.
3) Leases for three (3) years or less are usually legal -lSection 54(2) LPA 1925:
Protected by Schedule 3 paragraph 1
4) Leases for seven (7) years and below) they will be legal if made by deed - without
the need for registration and will take effect as overriding interest (Schedule 3
paragraph 1

Equitable Leases:
1) Equitable leases can be protected through Notice (S. 34 LRA 2002). If a Notice is placed they
are protected against later transfers of land.
2) However, if Notices are not placed, they can still take effect as an overriding interest:
Schedule 3 para 2: actual occupation

LICENCE : CHECKLIST
 Type of licence
 Licence as a personal right
 Exception where a licence may bind a particular purchaser

Type of licence:

1)Bare licence
2)Licence coupled with an interest
3) Contractual licence
4) Licence by estoppel

Personal right NOT a property right

 Thomas v Sorell (1673) - a licence is not proprietary and cannot bind third parties

Exception where a licence may bind a “particular” purchaser:

 Binions v Evans (1972)- Court of Equity will impose on the purchaser a constructive
trust in favour of the beneficiary if the circumstances deems so.
 Errington v Errington (1952) - “inequitable conduct” will make the particular
purchaser bound by the licence.

9
 LAND LAW- REVISION 2022

EASEMENTS- CHECKLIST

 Establishing an easement
 Method of creating an easement
 Protection of an easement

ESTABLISHING AN EASEMENT

Re Ellenborough Park (1956) –

1) Dominant Tenement (DT) and Servient Tenement (ST)
2) Separation of DT and ST
3) Easement accommodate the DT (benefits)
4) Easement capable of forming subject matter of a grant
i) Capable of forming subject matter of a grant :
ii) Not personal/Not recreational/Does not amount to exclusive possession (LICENCE)

METHODS OF CREATING AN EASEMENT

Express Creation : Grant OR Reservation – through document (sale/lease using a deed/written

contract)

Implied Creation: Grant 1)Necessity

2)Common Intention
3)Wheeldon v Burrow: a) quasi-easement
b)necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of land
AND/OR c)continuous & apparent

4)Section 62 LPA 1925: a)Prior diversity

b)Conveyance

Reservation 1) Necessity
2)Common Intention

*Whether the easement is legal or equitable depends on the document of sale/lease of the land it
is implied into.

PROTECTION OF AN EASEMENT against a third party purchaser

Schedule 3 paragraph 3 LRA 2002: a) It is actually known to the purchaser

(LEGAL AND IMPLIEDLY CREATED) b) It is obvious on a reasonable inspection of the land
(without seller having to disclose)
c)It was used for at least a year prior to the disposition

10
 LAND LAW- REVISION 2022

FREEHOLD COVENANT- CHECKLIST

 Covenants as contract : Positive AND Negative covenant
 Burden passing in equity and law
 Benefit passing in equity and law
 Registration requirement

COVENANTS AS CONTRACT:
 Obligation between parties (original C’tor & C’tee)- Original C’tor always liable
 Between successors in title to the original parties (burden and benefit has to pass
respectively)

BURDEN PASSING IN EQUITY AND LAW – Enforcement against successors to the original C’tor

In equity: YES.

TULK V MOXHAY: 1)Covenant is restrictive (-)

2)Covenant touches & concern the land
3)Covenantee must have owned land
4)Covenant intended to have run with the land :Section 79(1) LPA 1925
Note: Registration against covenantor’s land

At law: NO, unless the exception applies.

 Austerberry v Oldham Corporation (1885): only parties to the agreement can be burdened
by the covenant
 Exceptions:
o Chain of unbroken covenants for indemnity
o Mutual burden and benefit – Hallsall v Brizell.

BENEFIT PASSING IN EQUITY AND LAW- Enforcement by successors of the original C’tee

 The benefit of positive and negative covenants will pass at law and equity
 The practical discussion concerns the passing of the benefit in equity since the burden
passes in equity all the time. However, discuss benefit passing at law if the exception of
passing positive covenants is possible.

At law:

i.the covenant must touch and concern the land: Swift Investment v Combined English Stores (1989)
ii. the claimant must have a legal estate in the land
iii. the benefit was intended to run with the land
iv. One of the method applies: a) Annexation (express, implied)
b) Assignment

11
 LAND LAW- REVISION 2022

In Equity:

i. the covenant must touch and concern the land : Swift Investment v Combined English Stores
(1989)
ii. the claimant must have a legal or equitable estate in the land
iii. the benefit was intended to run with the land
iv. One of the method applies: a) Annexation
b) Assignment
c) Scheme of Development

Third Party conferred benefit to enforce covenant (other than original c’tee): At Law

 Section 56 LPA 1925

 Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1997

12