Land law collated notes PDF

Preview

Summary

Land law collated notesLand Registration- What is a deed, s 1 (2) Law of Property (miscellaneous provisions) Act 1989 - deeds term used, signed, witnessed, delivered as a deed. Then deed sent off for registration. Difference between register of deed and titles. Legal effect of deed sent to the regis...

Description

Land law collated notes Land RegistrationWhat is a deed, s 1 (2) Law of Property (miscellaneous provisions) Act 1989- deeds term used, signed, witnessed, delivered as a deed. Then deed sent off for registration. Difference between register of deed and titles. Legal effect of deed sent to the registration would not be valid if rights aren’t already owned. Registration of title, land registry does hard work for you and works out effect of deed and who owns property. System of registration of title, if it says you are the owner you are the owner. Rectification can change the register where there is issue. under registration of deed, register doesn’t have the title it is the deed that contains the title. Where as in title registration it is that which gives legal title. 1925 LPA introduced compulsary registration. Events that trigger registration have increased since its introduction, though there are still rights that have effect without registration. Dixon- “for now, however, the 2002 Act represents evolution not revolution” Tightened restrictions of Land Registration, harsher on adverse possession now. Wanting to limit unregistered rights. Rouff- mirror principle, the register should reflect the entire interest in a property, curtain principle should not have to look behind the curtain to identify interest. Parts of the register 1- property register, verbal description of property and appurtenant rights (rights involved in property). Boundaries s 60 LRA 2002, 1 the boundary of a registered estate as shown for the purposes of the register is a general boundary, unless shown as determined under this section. 2) a general boundary does not determine the exact line of the boundary. Land slips and floods can affect the boundary. Parts of the register 2: proprietorship register. Part 3 of the register, the charges registered. Third party rights that burden the property eg covenants easements and mortgages. Events that trigger compulsory registration s 4 LRA 2002Transfer for value or gift of a qualifying estate. Grant of lease that is either for a duration of over 7yrs or takes effect in possession more than three months after the date of the grant. Registering transfer makes it legal. Exception, reversionary lease, which doesn’t take effect immediately, tenant won’t take immediate possession. Reasoning behind it, don’t want too many short leases on the register, would take up too much time to register them all. Reason why reversionary lease must be on the register, won’t be any sign of a tenant in possession, thus potential purchaser would have no evidence of possession, thus it is put on the register, so buyers are aware. Transfers under right to buy. Creation of a mortgage over a freehold or lease hold estate. Register is final. Bestows legal effect. S 58 will operate even if there is mistake or fraud leading to a right being conferred. Have to apply for rectification to change title. Walker v Burton 2013- title of lordship of manor and fell, was wrong. It was a mistake shouldn’t have been registered as lord of the manor and thus shouldn’t be registered as owner of the fell. Said no one else has better title to the fell and mistaken registration was allowed to subsist. Swift 1st v Chief Land Registrar 2015- relating to a forged deed, leading to registration, had charge due to forgery. Because act of registration gave legal effect not the deed, charge registered as a result f forgery could still claim indemnity.

Adverse Possession Sch 6 LRA 2002 Thompson and Martin ‘the odds now heavily stacked against the mere trespasser in attempting to register title’ Cowan ‘the reform in this area is demonstrative of a specific moral agenda against the unlawful occupier’ LASPO 2012 S 144 illegal to squat in a residential building. Cowan- view changes under LASPO as new legal order. Favouring neo-liberal market driven agenda over equal housing and an opp to acquire land for all. Pye v Grahman- law in ap windfall for the squatter COA. Requirements the same for registered and unregistered land. 1. 2. 3. 4.

Discontinuance/ dispossession Factual possession Intention to possess Possession must be adverse

DiscontinuancePoint for clock to start to run. Rains v Buxton 1880- person coming in and driving someone out or someone leaving and another going into possession. Normally discontinuance. Buckinghamshire County Council v Moran CA- mowing lawn after someone stopped using the land is discontinuance. Factual possessionLord Advocate v Lord Lovat- ‘as to possession it must be considered in every case with reference to the particular circumstance.’ consider the case at hand. Type of land. Red House Farms v Catchpole- shooting, cl successful land only suitable for that activity. Powell v McFarlane- concerned boy going onto land taking profits, repaired some fences, not sufficient to show factual possession. Justice Sled need to show physical control, exclusive possession, single possession, dealing with land as owning occupier might have done. In this case no locking or blocking of the land. Didn’t have significant physical degree of control. Approved in Pye ‘; Buckinghamshire v Moran enclosure, locked gate, key. Seddon v Smith- LJ Hopper said enclosure strongest evidence of AP. Chambers v Havering- fencing not conclusive, used to keep animals from straying not keeping people out, consider cases as a whole. Boosey v Davis grazing of goat and repairing fence insufficient Tecbild v Chamberlain- children playing and ponys grazing not sufficient too trivial

R (Best) v Chief Land Registrar builder, house abandoned, repaired it significant acts thus significant.

Intention to possessPowell v McFarlane- intend to exclude world at large Buckinghamshire v Moran- intention to possess rather than own Pye v Graham- confirmed Moran, intention to possess can be deduced from actual possession

Possession is adverse to the owner Cant have a right to use the land or permission. Buckinghamshire v Moran- never adverse if enjoyed under lawful title, permission. Future intended use- Implied licence theory argument (trying to get around AP law) Denning trying to introduce principle. Leigh v Jack- if use by squatter not inconsistent with future intended plans of true owner then can’t be AP. Wallis Cauton Bay v Shell-Mex 1975- holiday camp, owned land adjoining, farmed it then used it as holiday camp, df didn’t show plans to use it, future intended use not going to happen before 12yr period, offered to sell land, after 12 yrs tried to cl title through AP. Denning said COA mere fact another person entered onto land for some temporary purpose doesn’t entitle them to AP, use implied by licence. Implied licence theory, no express licence. Disapplied implied licence theory in leg 1980- unprincipled argument- Limitation Act 1980. Buckinghamshire- Wallis wasn’t followed, said intention of owner to develop land in future not relevant. Pye v Graham concept of implied licence is heresy only to be found on exceptional facts. Case of permission. Disputed farm land, went to Court of Human Rights. Possession of 25 acres of farming land in Berkshire. Graham permitted permission to graze land licence in 1983, Pye declined to renew agreement in 1983, permission to take hay 1984. Afterwards land used for farming, lock on it, factual possession, no permission. Knew risk of losing land, prepared to pay for licencing agreement. 1999 High court said they had factual possession, valuable land millions. CoA found for Pye. HoL found in favour of Graham, unhappy with coming to conclusion, Bingham said outcome unjust, arrive at this result with no enthusiasm. LRA not into force yet. Pye v UK- HR art 1, ECHR said did infringe rights, grand chamber found favour of state, the law was valid and served a valid aim. Unilateral licence BP properties v Buckler 1988- problematic, case concerned df mother right reside in it, 1month short of 12yrs, letter sent givign her permission to remain in prop rent free for rest of life. Letter neither accepted nor rejected, unilateral, son cl AP gained property through mum, COA found that she was in possession of the land by the licence, sufficient that permission given unilaterally. Thompson- decision might be justified, but grounds seem to be wrong. Shouldn’t be open to owner to convert squatter to licencee.

Smith v Molyneaux- Privy council, refer to BP Properties, held permission arrose by inference from the fact that the respondent was told they would have to leave when the land was needed, oral permission to unilaterally offer permission, agreeing with BP. Acknowledgement of true owner's title will defeat the cl Allen v Mathews- permission given, use more excessive than permission, successful in AP cl. Agent acknowledging is not sufficient. Solicitor did not enough. Ofulue v Bossert- letter which stated without prejudice, cl registered owners in 1976, went to live in nigeria 1981 father and daughter let into property renovated and updated it, Ofulue asked them to leave, didn’t take action, Bossert's offered to buy property without prejudice, asked daughter to leave she cl AP. Was letter acknowledgement of true title owner. HoL dismissed it, without prejudice shouldn’t be admissible of acknowledgement of the ownership.

Interruption of time- stopping the clock Zarb v Perry- boundary dispute. Zarb, went into neighbours garden trying to take back possession, was it sufficient to stop clock running. Putting fence panel up isn’t enough. Unregistered land or registeredUnregistered- applying the Limitation Act 1980- looking for 12yrs AP. s15 need to show 12yrs after that time true owner statute barred from recovering. S17 extinction of title to land after expiration of time limit title of true owner extinguished. s28 - extension of period if true owner more vulnerable, not of sound mind disability. Crown land need 30yrs. S29 and s30, for the purpose of s29 an acknowledgment must be in writing and signed by the person. Registered land12yrs AP before 13th Oct 2003 LRA. Then Limitation Act 1980, plus transitional provisions under LRA sch 12 2002. If not then law LRA 2002 Sch 6 para 1-9. Dixon- no amount of possession of itself will deprive the posessor. 2002 Act much more difficult to succeed. S96(1) disapplication of limitation period under s15 of the limitation Act 1980.

Sch 6 LRA- new system Para 1- right to apply for registration after 10yrs. If evicted in last 6 months then can cl. Can’t apply if case against you began. Para 2- notification of application to the true owner and relevant parties by the land registrar. Must tell them the implication if they don’t respond, within 65 working days squatter will be able to take possession. Para 3- treatment of application, can consent to application, or can ask for it to be dealt with under para 5

Para 4- if application under para 1 not required to be dealt with under para 5 application is entitled to be entered in the register as new owner. Para 5- 1. exceptions- first condition is that it would be unconscionable because of an equity by estoppel for the registered prop to seek to dispossess the applicant 2. Applicant is for Some other reason entitled to be registered bridges v mees where paid full price and went into possession but land never conveyed.3. Boundary disputes, land is adjacent to land belonging to the applicant, the exact line of the boundary never been determined, at least 10yrs of AP and they reasonably believe it belong to them. What is reasonable belief Chowdrey 2012- agents reasonable belief won’t mean applicant has it Zarb v Parry- how long need to have reasonable belief, doesn’t have to endure until date of application, though mustn’t end too far before the end Para 6- where a person’s application is rejected may make another application after 2 further years, entitled to be entered into register as true proprietor, though not if already court possession proceeding against them.

Critical approach to APCooke- ‘Virtually squatter proof’ Bogusz ‘adverse possession is an outdated concept’ Cobb and Fox- squatters are now identified as morally blameworthy, changes fail to acknowledge the complexities in striking a balance between advertent squatter and neglectful landowners. Conway and Stannards- emotional paradoxes that lie at the foundation of the doctrine Yanner v Eaton Gleeson ‘the nineteenth century dogma that everything must be owned’ New idea that everything must be owned. Part of registration. May 2011 Ministry of Justice announced the launch of consultation on criminalisation of squatting, 96% of those that responded said that they didn’t wish to see any change to squatting legislation. squatting in residential building results in criminal proceedings can be a yr in jail or £5,000 fine. Law Society ‘the consultation paper acknowledges that there are no reliable data on the nature and extent of squatting. No reason to believe that the existing law does not deal adequately with squatting’. Cobb and Fox before change in the law- justifications of squatting, Locke idea that right to land can be acquired through productive use of land. Personhood theory Sarah Keenan- person exists in context, control over resources in the area. Moral utilitarianism, achieves the maximum overall benefit for the landowner and squatter, squatter in greater need than the landowner in relation to this property. Cowan- post laspo, shift to protecting moral responsibility from land owner to squatter. Voyias v Information Commissioner and the London Borough Council- case on information of the number of empty homes in the borough. Judge Henderson said it was in the public interest to put empty homes back into use.

Homelessness- Brighton has the biggest no , increased from 78 to 144 rough sleepers. Criminalisation of squatting and AP can still be made under civil law, conflicting Best v Chief Land Reg- LASPO came in towards the end of period, HC said he could cl under sch 6 for AP, not benefitting from criminal conduct, can still cl though criminal. SQUASH since the act came into force 736 arrests and 50-60% charged. 69 convictions and 3 people convicted. What is the difference between residential and commercial distinction? Pawlowski- Dark market in possessory title, have to have 10yrs, doesn’ t have to be 10yrs in AP by one person can hand on, no incentive to apply for registration. Said should lose right to clAP if don’t after 10yrs. Article ‘AP and the transmissibility of possessory rights- the dark side of land reg’ 3 Pages. Malik v Faaenfelt- art 8 right to possession of home v legal right art 1. strong factor in pursuit of legal title art 8 failed. Hikey- believes that the idea of unilateral recognition of the title (as in Buckler) is contrary to the Limitations Act requirement of acknowledgement of a superior title. These such considerations also run the risk of introducing the heresy of acknowledging the paper title owners intention which was rejected in Pye. Law Commission said that the creation of a licence to stop the clock should be bilateral in nature. Thompson and george new act should be welcomed as enhances reliability of the register. Gray and gray suggest that adverse possession doesn’t work in a system whereby registration of title is supposed to provide the definitive record of ownership. Cowan great debatesContradiction between the criminal and civil law has resulted from the legal gaining of property rights from an activity the EU regards as illegal. Law commission asked parliament to criminalise entering a property and remaining in 1974. Since then there was criminalisation of using violence when entering a property and then failing to leave a property entered as a tresspasser when asked to do so by the owner or occupier. CLA 1997 extending liability only to those trespassers that entered places that were needed for homes. Conservative government review 2011 described the ‘distress and misery squatting caused’ Ministry of Justice. ‘For many squatting is not a life style but a necesity brought about by the lack of affordable housing’ it attracts the most vulnerable with the most complex housing needs. Criminalisation allows the state to ignore its responsibilities. Current housing market cause and necesitate squatting. Coalitions consultation paper- there are other options for those that are destitute. No matter how compelling the squatters circumstances it is wrong for the legitimate owner to be deprived of their right to occupy. Spikes in the number of squatters can be linked to the increase in empty house, people not using their properties.

Gov justification for limiting criminal liability of squatting to residential buildings is that commercial ones would limit industrial action capabilities. The criminalisation excludes the debate on land use and social needs. Gray favours this view- Stewardship theory that owners have a right to the land but a respective duty to use the land and to maximise the resources of the community. This is deemed to be contrary to the view of property rights of private ownership. The view of land as a resource rather than a economic value, as something to be looked after is common in indegenous cultures such as in Australia and America, as was highlighted in Begay v Keedah. Hickey conflict between civil and criminal law, civil law awards criminal act of squatting if they dont

Leases Lease or term of years, s 1(1)(b) LPA 1925. Can be legal or equitable. It is both a contractual and a property right. Can be critiqued for the two areas of law that it may fall under. Gray and Gray‘conceptual ambivalence of the lease’. Bruton v London and Quadrant Housing Trust case illustrates the irresolvable dual nature of the leases. The holder of the property acquired it from a property developer to use the land as homeless accomodation whilst the property was not needed. L&Q who granted the licence to Mr Bruton to use the property did not possess any power to grant a lease, though there was found to be one, on the basis of intention. Due to payments which were rent and exclusive possession, viewing the label of the agreement of irrelevant. Hoffman viewed that it was the fact that there was proprietary rights that makes it a tennacy not the other way round. Fixed term lease- granted for a fixed period, can be long or short, created expressly, terminates when the period ends. Periodic Tenancy- time to time, month to month, may be expressly agreed or flexible, may be created via implication moves in with an agreement on the length of time they will pay the rent. Tenancy at will, flexible, occupation with the consent of LL but can leave at wish. Tenancy at sufferance- LL hasn’t asked them to leave but no agreement they can stay. Definition of lease- LPA 1925 S205(1) term of years absolute means a term of years either certain or liable to determination by notice,re-entry , operation of law, or by provision for ceaser. Characteristics of a lease- exclusive possession, maximum certain duration and rent payable Street v Mountford- crucial for discussion of leases Certainty of duration-

Lace v Chantler- lease must commence at and exist for a time certain or at or for a time which can be rendered certain. Said to last for the time of WWII void for uncertainty. Prudential Assurance v London Residuary Board- rented land in order to develop land, build shop, plans to widen road, cl that lease shall continue until it is required for road widening, no valid fixed term as duration not certain, argued could be a periodic tenancy, month to month with it voidable at the end of each payment upon notice, they argued that only the tenant could end the agreement as LL could only end for widening purposes, this was invalid. Alternative contractual analysis that the parties were free to agree their contract as they liked was overruled by Prudential. Mexfield housing v Berrisford reaffirmed Prudential. In this case it was a monthly tenancy which wouldve been valid in itself, though it contained terms which meant that the LL could only determine the tenancy by excersise of a right to re-entry on 4 grounds, it was held to be uncertain as to the period and equity followed the law in finding it to be uncertain. But the SC decided that the tennancy was a life lonf with the option to end on the set g...