TLATA altered the rights of The Wolfenden Report shifted perceptions about the role of the law in enforcing morality.'
The tenants in common are owners of undivided shares and whilst the advantage is that they avoid the 'survivorship wheel of fortune' and can decide to whom their share may vest, its drawbacks are the great inconvenience it creates for the conveyancing process. The 1925 legislation sought to promote free alienability of land and aimed to simplify the conveyancing system. Consequently it held that the tenancy in common, could exist only in equity and also that whenever land is subject to co-ownership a trust for sale is imposed. The equitable interests in the land were presumed to be rights in personalty...and therefore all trustees had an automatic duty to sell1. However since the coming into force of the LPA19252 the position of undivided owners is different from what it was before. No longer is property purchased primarily for investment as matrimonial and cohabiting purposes are fast becoming more popular. However the doctrine of conversion was never strictly applied and courts decisions were often based on the specific purposes of the property. TLATA3 introduced new reforms for undivided owners, and this practice has now been given statutory effect under the trusts of land. The general rule pertaining to a trust remains applicable to TLATA and trustees have a fiduciary duty to safeguard the interest of the beneficiaries'. Whilst the act followed the recommendation4 to
A covenant in land law is a promise created by deed1 between two parties, one providing the promise not to engage in an activity (negative) or to do a positive action on their own land for the benefit of the other parties neighbouring land e.g. preservation of non-business character in residential areas. Covenants between freeholders contain two aspects; a benefit to the person receiving the obligation and a corresponding burden to the provider. The rules relating to transmission of the benefit of the covenant are independent from the transmission of a burden. It is possible for the benefit to run to 'successors in title' of the original covenantee but for the burden to have been destroyed or to bind original covenantor only (see later), and vice versa. The benefit of a covenant will pass provided that the covenant 'touches and concerns'2 the land of the original covenantee at the time it was made. This means property law is concerned with the transmission of proprietary rights, not personal advantages. This ensures the title is not cluttered up by obligations that are merely temporary, ambiguous and personal in nature, the conveyance of land is unfettered. Diagram to illustrate parties involved. A = COVANANTEE - Alan has benefit of covenant (Freehold owner) (receives the promise) B = COVENANTOR - Justin has burden of covenant and the person whom gives the benefit.
Question 1 The Mirror Principle and the Land Act of 2002 A sound system of land registration is underpinned by three principles: the insurance principle; the curtain principle, and; the mirror principle. The insurance principle refers to the guarantee secured by the State that any loss incurred by a registered land resulting from reliance on the conclusiveness of the land Registry by a land purchaser will be compensated through a statutory indemnity system. The curtain principle, on the other hand, is the concept that land registration may allow certain equitable interests attached to the land hidden from a purchaser's view. This 'curtain,' however, does not affect the validity of any transaction on the registered land so long as the details of the registration reflects the validity of the title. Finally, there is the mirror principle. The mirror principle refers to the idea that the due registration of a land title must reflect all the important and significant details that a purchaser must know before buying the land. These details refer to the identity of the "owner, the nature of his ownership, any limitations on his ownership and any rights enjoyed by other persons over the land that are adverse to the owner." 1 The objective of the mirror principle has not been met under the Land Registration Act 2000 because of the impossibility of entering all land details in the
Now the ordinary rule of law is, that whoever has got the solumwhoever has got the siteis the owner of everything up to the sky and down to the centre of the earth (Corbett v Hill (1870) LR 9 EQ 671 at 673, per Sir William J
'Now the ordinary rule of law is, that whoever has got the solum-whoever has got the site-is the owner of everything up to the sky and down to the centre of the earth' (Corbett v Hill (1870) LR 9 EQ 671 at 673, per Sir William James V-C). Explain the above statement and discuss its accuracy in relation to airspace and subterranean space. You should include in your answer a discussion of whether it might be possible to claim adverse possession of airspace and subterranean space. (You should not consider fixtures or finder's titles.) The law concerning airspace and subterranean space appears to be exceptionally complex and to an extent even outdated. Sir William James' attempt to clarify the law using the Latin maxim "cuis est solum eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos"1 seems to have created even more legal uncertainty and appears to have done more harm than good. The maxim is now subject to vast exceptions as well as having been denounced by contemporary legal commentators and even senior judges. This essay will explore the accuracy of Sir William James' judgement; it will also question the argument that the maxim is still considered "the ordinary rule of law"2 and will look at how modern land law has gone about dealing with the legal confusion caused by this judgement, focusing primarily on airspace and subterranean space. Firstly, in order to explain the above
Would the abolishment of adverse possession in relation to both registered and unregistered land been far preferable to the enactment of the Land Registration Act.
Martin Dockray states "It is arguable that it is in the public interest to promote the full use of neglected natural resources and that it is desirable that a fixed time limit should exist to encourage the improvement and development of land which might otherwise lie abandoned or under exploited for many years."1 Contrary to this, the Law Commission sought to severely limit adverse possession in relation to registered land. The recommendations in the report on Land Registration for the Twenty-First Century2 led to the enactment of The Land Registration Act 2002. 3 This brought about a radical change to the rules regarding adverse possession in relation to registered land. The owner's title to a registered estate in land will not be barred by any period of adverse possession4 and the squatter must successfully apply to the Registrar before obtaining rights. However, when an application is made the paper title owner is notified and can object the application and pursue the eviction of the squatter. This renders registered land "virtually squatter-proof"5. The situation regarding unregistered land is not changed by the Land Registration Act6. Adverse possession will be successful following a 12 year period, "the paper title owner is prevented from suing and his title is effectively extinguished after 12 years."7 The Land Registration Act has therefore made the rules regarding
Problem: Security of Tenure: Business Landlord and Tenant. The aim of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, Part II legislation, given by the Law Commission is to "give traders and professional persons a general right to retain their business premises so long as they comply with their obligations as tenants". Therefore, in order to ascertain whether the occupiers of Robin's flat may gain protection from the statute they must fulfil the relevant criteria stipulated in the act. The Law Commission also stipulates that "Landlords are not unreasonably prevented from regaining possession if they want the property for their own occupation of to redevelop it" which is relevant to Robin's intentions which may provide grounds for opposition against the tenants' potential claims. However, in order for tenants to gain protection from the Landlord and Tenant Act, Part II and in order for the Landlord to rebut these claims certain criteria which may be found in statute and case law must be fulfilled.Each tenant's situation will be examined in order to ascertain whether they are or are not eligible for protection under the LTA, 1953, Pt II. Robin's girlfriend, Marion, has been renting a flat on the fifth floor. She has been running her massage business from the flat for the last three years without having told Robin. The fact that the term exceeds 6 months means she is not exempt from
RENT RESTRUCTURING The rent restructuring (RR) debate was triggered by the publication of the 2000 Green paper 'Quality and Choice: A decent home for all'. The following paper is a response to the numerous policy developments and subsequent implications that have resulted from this document. The paper will be presented in two parts. Firstly one is concerned to deal with the policy and the decisions that have been taken by the Labour Government over that last few years. Here I will comment on rationale that lay behind the decision to abolish the old system of rents. Also I will attempt to uncover why the Government is so keen to seek convergence of rent levels between the two social housing sectors. In the second part of this paper I am more concerned to identify the real life implications of the shift in direction of the policy. Below I will discuss what the policy shift actually means to those organisations and self interest groups affected by it. Particular attention shall be paid to the implications arising from the policy which affect social landlords. Due regard shall be paid here because some landlords believe that a question mark hangs over their future viability. Another major point of concern for me in this paper is how tenants of social housing will be affected by the changes that will result from rent reform. The Government has suggested that tenants will get a
LAND LAW ESSAY QUESTION In 2000, Allan bought the Cornershop from William with the intention of operating a business selling dog clothing and accessories. Title to the shop premises was registered at all times. The purchase price was £200,000. Allan contributed £150,000 whilst his girlfriend, Becky, contributed the remaining £50,000. Allan was registered as the sole proprietor, and he and Becky moved into the living quarters on the premises. As part of the purchase agreement, Allan granted William an easement (a right of way across the backyard of the shop, which William needed to get his Wheelie Bin to the street from his new home, which was next door). Allan also covenanted with William that he and his successors in title would not keep or sell live animals from the shop. In June of this year, Allan sold the Cornershop to Davina, who was duly registered as the new proprietor. Davina has known Allan for a while and is aware that Becky has been living with him in the Cornershop. She was a little surprised, therefore, that when she visited the premises Becky was not around and that she only saw Allan's possessions in the flat. She felt too embarrassed to ask about this in case the pair had recently split up. In fact the reasons were that the deal was being done without the knowledge of Becky, the visit and completion actually took place when Becky was on a fortnight
The Land Registration Act was first enacted in 1925, the system is based on two types of estates, freehold and leasehold 'which rest upon wholly different foundations'1. The Land Registry and Law Commission were responsible for the introduction of the Draft Land Registration Act2. There is a statutory requirement from April 1998, that all conveyances of freehold or long leasehold estates must be completed by registration of title at the HM Land Registry. The new Act came into force in October 20023 Part 9 of the Act deals with, adverse possession, where the first registered occupier is dispossessed by a squatter who is in factual possession4 and shows an intention to possess. After the trespasser lets the authorities know of his existence he can issue a caution, this enables him to be listed on the register. If anyone wishes to make a conveyance of the land, it will be mandatory for the Registry to notify the trespasser of anyone else wanting to acquire the 'first registration', held by the registered proprietor, to that land. In Littledale's5 case the user of the land, put up gates which showed his intention to possess, this is de facto possession, as he had no title to the land, and through the virtues of the Limitation Act legitimised his continuing possession. The 'Disapplication of Periods of Limitation' is the first section contained within Part 9. Where there is a
The rules governing the creation of implied easements are in need of reform. Discuss (2000 words) Many are familiar with the two principal estates that are capable of existing in land; the fee simple absolute in possession (or freehold), and the term of years absolute (or leasehold). A less well-known but no less significant legal right in land is the easement. The law governing the creation of easements, both expressly and impliedly, has developed in a somewhat haphazard way, and there is an argument that the current state of that law is not fit for purpose in today's society. This essay will consider the law specifically relating to the creation of implied easements, in order to assess whether it is indeed in need of reform. We must begin, briefly, with the basics. An easement is a right of user over the land of another. This right can be either positive or negative, and must be attached to a specific piece of land, which is described as the "dominant tenement". The right must also be capable of being exercised over a second piece of land, the "servient tenement". The holder of the right is enabled to use the servient tenement land in a particular way, as particularised in the specific right. A right of way, frequented by a neighbour, over the farmland of another, would be an obvious example. In the eyes of the law, the holder of the right has a proprietary right over the