'The 'mirror' principle, the 'curtain' principle and the 'insurance' principle form the tripod on which the whole English and Welsh system of land registration rests'.Explain, in detail, these three principles.
(a) 'The 'mirror' principle, the 'curtain' principle and the 'insurance' principle form the tripod on which the whole English and Welsh system of land registration rests'. Explain, in detail, these three principles and discuss the validity of the statement quoted. and (b) What is an overriding interest and why is the concept important in relation to the transfer of title of land in England and Wales? (a) The object of registration of title is to make the transfer of land simpler, quicker, cheaper and safer. Previously in unregistered conveyancing, the vendor was required to produce documentary evidence of the past transactions over a period of 15 years to prove that he was the owner of the estate that he was selling. Registered conveyancing seeks to eliminate such lengthy inspections of deeds by putting in its place a register that can be inspected and prospective buyers can find a description of the land, the name of the registered proprietor and any third party registrable rights. The purchaser should at this stage have a complete up to date picture of the title of the property and if accompanied by a search of the local land charges register and a physical inspection of the land should afford adequate protection to any potential buyer. This system, however, is not perfect and certain rights are not registrable and may not be discovered even with the other checks
fixtures and chattels-problem questio
Word guideline: 2000 words Submission date: Thursday 16 November 2006 Hand back during week commencing: 11 December 2006 Title: Siegfried has recently sold the freehold of his house, Crown Villa to Boris. When Boris moved in yesterday he discovered that Siegfried had removed the following items: (i) a bathroom mirror with integrated lighting; (ii) a microwave oven which had been situated in an alcove in the kitchen; (iii) a free standing cupboard which had been in the utility room and (iv) A large summer house which had been adjacent to the rockery at the bottom of the garden. Advise Boris whether he can demand the return of these items. How might your advice differ if Boris had been the landlord and Siegfried the tenant of Crown Villa, and Siegfried had just vacated the property taking these items with him This question requires the discussion of what items fall within the classification of the legal definition of land This question requires the discussion of what items fall within the classification of the legal definition of land. Land Is defined in s205 (1) (ix) Law of property Act 1925 as "'Land' includes land of any tenure and mines an minerals, whether or not held apart from the surface buildings of parts of buildings (whether the division is horizontal, vertical or made in some other way) and other corporeal hereditaments, also a manor, an advowson,
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
Covenants in land law.
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.
The Mirror Principle and the Land Act of 2002. Analysis and case problem question.
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
Business Tenancies
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
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
The effects of registered title and covenants. Problem Question.
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