Tenancy Type. Mary owns a residential property in Putney, London. Five months ago she entered into a written agreement to let the whole of the property to Martin for a period of five years and Martin duly moved in. The agreement specifically stated, inte
Task 3: Mary owns a residential property in Putney, London. Five months ago she entered into a written agreement to let the whole of the property to Martin for a period of five years and Martin duly moved in. The agreement specifically stated, inter alia, that the property must be used for residential purposes only. M now considering using the property for business purposes. Mary may sell the house. Before critically discussing Martin's position it is necessary to consider the general legal position and analyse these to apply to the factual matrix. The issues that arise are the type of tenancy, whether a breach of the tenancy gives rise to any remedy and if so what, whether the tenancy terms are fair in any event and whether rights or liabilities arise on the sale of a property. I will consider these in turn. Types of Tenancy In the residential sector there are a number of different types of tenancies that exist. However only a certain number relate to the private sector. The Law Commission has considered that the preset position is unsatisfactory and has recommended that these are all changed to only two types effectively a type 1 and type 2.1 Firstly there are protected regulated tenancies. For the most part these are rare as any tenancy created after 15th January 19892 cannot be such a tenancy as a result of the Housing Act 1988. Certainly this means the
The property legislation of 1925
Introduction One of the most important changes made by the property legislation of 1925 was the severe curtailment of the equitable doctrine of notice which had played such an important role in the development of the land law. The doctrine is retained in unregistered land, although in a limited form [FN1] but is excluded entirely under the system of registration of title. [FN2] Yet in unregistered land the doctrine has, since 1925, retained an unexpected importance, whilst in registered land there seem increasingly to be traces of the doctrine. [FN3] Given the present uncertainty, it is instructive to trace the decline of the influence of the doctrine and to consider the reasons for that decline. [FN4] Problems with the doctrine The historical development of the doctrine of notice in the courts of equity is too well known to need detailed exposition [FN5]: its importance in the development of the law cannot be understated. Nevertheless, by the nineteenth century, the notice doctrine was acknowledged as causing considerable difficulties; it was identified in the earliest reports and proposals for reform in the nineteenth century as one of the major problems of real property. [FN6] Difficulties arose mainly over the question of whether a person who was admittedly a purchaser for value of a legal estate [FN7] in fact had ""notice" of the prior equitable right. Actual notice,
The Land Registration Act 2002 heralds major changes to the law and procedures regarding adverse possession. To what extent do you feel that the traditional justification for adverse possession in English land law cannot be supported.
Table of Statutes Limitation Act 1980 ... 4, 6, 9 s 15 (1) ... 4 s17 ... 6 Land Registration Act 1925 ...4, 6, 9 s 70 (1) (f) ... 6 s 75 ... 4 s 75 (1) ... 6, 7, 8 s75 (2) ... 7, 8 s 75 (3) ... 8 Land Registration Act 2002 ... 4, 9, 11, 13, 14 s. 11(4) (b) ... 13 s. 11(4) (c) ... 13 s 73 (1) ... 10 s 96(1) ... 14 s 96(3) ... 14 s 97 ... 9, 10 s 110 (4) ... 12 Sch. 3, para 2(c) ... 13 Sch 6, para 1 (1) ... 9, 10, and 14 Sch 6, para 2 ... 14 Sch 6, para 2 (1) ... 10 Sch 6, para 3 ... 14 Sch 6, para 3(1) ... 10 Sch 6, para 4 ... 14 Sch 6, para 5 ... 11, 14 Sch 6, para 5(1) ... 11 Sch 6, para 5(2) ... 13 Sch 6, para 5(2) (a) ... 11 Sch 6, para 5(2) (b) ... 11 Sch 6, para 5(3) ... 12 Sch 6, para 5(4) (a) ... 12 Sch 6, para 5(4) (b) ... 12 Sch 6, para 5(4) (c) ... 12 Sch 6, para 6(1) ... 11 Sch 6, para 7 ... 11, 14 Sch 12, para 7 ... 13 Table of Cases Central London Commercial Estates Ltd v Kato Kagaku [1998] 4 All ER 948 ... 7 Fairweater v. St Mary Lebone Property Company Ltd [1963] AC 510 ... 6, 7, 8 Gillet v Holt [2001] Ch. 210 ... 11 JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham [2000] Ch 676 at 710B-C ... 4 JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham [2003] 1 AC 419 at [2] ... 5 Ramsden v Dyson (1866) 1 L.R. 129 at 168 ... 13 Spectrum Investment Co v Holmes [1981] 1 WLR 221 ... 7, 8 Trustees of Dundee Harbour v. Dougall (1852) 1 Macq. 321 ... 5 Introduction
Land law problem question - access
Introduction The Land Registration Act 1925[1], which first introduced the system of registered land, its aim was to simplify conveyancing by placing all the essential information about an estate in the land on a register. In 1998, Law Commission and the Land Registry proposed major changes to the system of registered title, by a consultative document, Land Registration for the Twenty-First Century, Law Com No 254[2]. In the view of this, the LRA 1925 was repealed and replaced by the Land Registration Act 2002[3].[4] The LRA 2002 has maintained the basic structure of registered land introduced by the LRA 1925.However under the new Act, more titles to land must now be registered; more interest must now be entered on to the register to be protected, consequently reducing the overriding interests; the way in which property can be acquired through adverse possession has been fundamentally watered down; a system has been put in place which paves the way for electronic conveyancing.[5] The system is often described as being based on three principles: . The mirror principle. This means that the register is intended to reflect accurately all the facts material to a given title. A purchaser is not concerned with the past history of the title, nor is he required to carry out the sort of inquiries and inspections that may be expected of the purchaser of unregistered land; the
Registration of land
Land registration isn't a new concept, its dates as early as the mid 19th century1. The first statute to govern land registration was Land Registration Act 1862. 2 Due to the lack of technological services, it led to the downfall of the first land registry3 mainly due to the fact that it was not compulsory to register. Furthermore, any further transactions were also not recorded. The second statute, Land Transfer Act 1875 created to govern land registration implemented several steps to improve the older one but yet, it failed leaving land registration on a breaking point. 1925 was the point where land registration took a giant leap with the implementation of 2 new legislation; Land Registration Act 1925 and Law of Property Act 1925. In 1950 it was said that the office had registered over one million titles and by 19634, about 2 million5. However, registered land was still not open to the public. However, the availability of latest technology led to an electronically based system6 which could provide registered land titles for the viewing of the public. In 2002, a new piece of legislation emphasizing on electronic conveyancing which is the Land Registration Act 2002 was created. Its aim is to have all marketable and transferable property in England and Wales to be registered by 20127. It replaced the old statute immediately but still applying the fundamental principles. 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
Interpretation and Cases on Village Greens: Commons Registration Act 1965
'Sunningwell started the debate and the Trap Grounds finished it'. Review the case law underlying this contentious statement. Notes Regarding Property Outline: In following the suggestions provided to me by my seminar leader, I have searched out quotes regarding the changing face of village greens to add value to my essay. Outside of this remark I have not changed any of my intentions with the format of this essay as the outline suggests this. This essay will focus on cases, particularly Sunningwell, Beresford, and Oxfordshire (both the Court of Appeal and House of Lords decisions), that have dealt with the interpretation and application of various legislation involving type 'c' village greens, with particular emphasis on the Commons Act 1965. With reference to the title statement, I comply that the 'debate' that is suggested in this heading involves much more than simply those cases mentioned within it, and to suggest that the 'debate' could have occurred so succinctly would be ill-considered and quite circumscribed. I intend to support this claim by analysing the 1965 legislation as well as the ensuing amendments to it and relevant case law. I believe that the 'debate' mentioned in the title statement involves the interpretation of the Commons Registration Act 1965 legislation, specifically regarding type 'c' village greens and their definition. However, I contend that
Lease/Licence Distinction
LANDLORD AND TENANT Task 1: Explain the essential characteristics of a Lease and critically distinguish between a Lease and a Licence.. In order to address the differences it is necessary first to look at the characteristics of each and then analyse effectively the present day position and what the effect of that distinction is. Historically the distinction in terms of frequent litigation arose as a result really of the Rent Acts whereby residential tenants were given full security of tenure and in effect had a home for life unless one of the grounds for possession as set out in the Act were made out. Indeed there are similar provisions in relation to Assured Tenancies under the Housing Act 1988 apart from the fact that there are certain mandatory grounds for possession notably Ground 8. Landlords therefore took steps to use a mechanism to try and get round the Rent Acts to show that the occupancy was merely one of licence which in effect was a personal contract to occupy but not on an exclusive basis. For some time this was effective until cases developed but the law was confusing at that time to say the least and even the House of Lords found difficulty in grappling with the problems. In order to address the issues it is therefore necessary to consider what a Lease actually is. A lease creates an estate in Land1 which basically is leasehold testate for a term of years
This essay will attempt to critically evaluate some of the legal and policy issues that led to the enactment of the Party Wall Act 1996 and whether it has been successful.
This essay will attempt to critically evaluate some of the legal and policy issues that led to the enactment of the Party Wall Act 1996 and whether it has been successful. Lord Lytton expressed it best in his speech during the second reading of the bill for the Party Walls Act 1996. He insists that many of the disputes between adjacent owners are out of proportion to the issues and this is the key problem which the Bill attempts to address.1 He shrewdly points out some of the problems within the existing legislature in dealing with party wall structures between adjacent neighbours. What Lord Lytton is referring to is the often preventable disputes that neighbours experience when one of the parties, namely, the 'building owner' undertakes construction work. This includes work that is ..."carried out to a party wall or other shared boundary structure. They also apply to the erection of a new boundary structure ('line of junction works') and to excavations which have the potential to interfere with the stability of an adjacent building or structure ('adjacent excavations')."2 Often times, this dispute cannot be settled by the two parties alone and thus legal ramifications ensue. However, if there was an agreement between the two parties prior to the start of construction, this would lower the likelihood of a dispute and subsequent legal actions. This readily use of legal
Land Law
LAND LAW COURSEWORK Prepared By; CHRISTINA BOODOOSINGH YEAR: 2009/2010 "A central problem addressed in the 1925 Property legislation was how to cope with the fragmentation of benefit created by the widespread use of trusts in relation to land. Discuss, How has subsequent legislation sought to deal with this enduring problem? To what extent has it been successful? " CONTENTS S.No Description Page No. Introduction 3 2 Foundation and Aims of 1925 Legislation 4 3 Analysing LPA 1925 5 4 Extent of Successfulness of LRA 1925 6 5 Trust of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 and Settled Land Act 1925 8 6 Conclusion 1 7 Bibliography 2 INTRODUCTION The aims of English property law was extensively restructured in 1925 due to its complexities and irregularities, this has been carefully and precisely summarised by Lord Upjohn1:": "it has been the policy of the law for over a hundred years to simplify and facilitate transactions in real property. One of the most notable changes brought in by the 1925 legislation was the expansion of the registered land system. The need for a comprehensive register of title to land remained the primary ambition of law reformers for a long time. This was evident in the 1857 Royal Commission2 that aimed for the land owners "to deal with land in as simple and easy a manner, as far as title is concerned...". The realisation of