Mr Hay can only claim to be free from notice if he made all reasonable enquiries. Under constructive notice he must have inspected all deeds, and then he may be free from Mr Wood’s interest. Mr Wood also has an option to buy the property from Major Thorn if he ever decides to sell the property.
An easement is considered to be legal when it is express or implied in a deed and statute. It can be argued that Mr Plant has used the right of way for many years, this is implied. We can assume if the owner had not said anything they may have been in some sort of agreement.
If the easement used by Mr Plant is equitable then it will bind Major Thorn as equitable rights are rights in ‘personam’. Only Mr Hay will be bound since the land is registered. As shown in the case of Hunt v Luck it is stated that the purchaser should make a reasonable enquiry before the sale of property. Mr Hay can be classed as a ‘bona fida purchaser’ as he can argue that he had no notice of the easement therefore is not bound.
A fixture is part of the land. If something is not fixed, the presumption is that it is a chattel. If the contract of sale does not state what is a fixture/chattel then courts apply the test of annexation and the purpose of the annexation test. Degree of annexation test looks at how close the item is attached to the land making it a subjective test. The purpose of annexation test is objective. As stated in the case of Vaudeville ‘a chair which stands on its own weight may be a fixture if it contributes to the overall design of a room’. Mr Hay can argue that the elephant was displayed for the overall design of the room therefore it constitutes as a fixture.
As sMr Hay can argue it has been used as part of the realty therefore he can argue that it is a fixture, as it required a special hiring equipment to be removed.
By using the test of purpose of the annexation test, it can be stated for the elephant to be a chattel as it was there for the improvement of the property as shown in the case of Leigh v Taylor. Therefore, it can be said for the statute to constitute as a chattel.
When unregistered land is sold, conveyance takes place using unregistered land principles. After sale, the land must be registered, and all future conveyancing will be on registered land principles.
Property rights which are not created by a deed are qualified as equitable interest under s1 (3).
When land was sold to farmer field by Mr Potter an agreement was made for the premises to be used for residential purposes only, this is known as a restrictive covenant. Under the Land Charges register class D (ii) restrictive covenant became registrable after 1 January 1926. If it is registered, registration constitutes actual notice s198 and purchaser is bound. Under residual rights whether this right binds the purchaser depends upon the doctrine of notice.
It is stated that the land was sold ’30 years ago’, therefore the restrictive covenant binds upon Mr Corn as it was made after 1926 making it registrable under Class D (ii) on the land charges register, constituting to actual notice.
Under constructive notice a purchaser can only claim to be free from notice if he makes reasonable enquiries of the interest. He cannot attempt to avoid equitable interest by shutting his eye and ears, therefore not having actual notice. A purchaser should make a reasonable enquiry of all interests. The rule stated in the case of Hunt v Luck ‘If purchaser fails to make such enquiries he will be fixed with constructive notice of any rights possessed by the persons in occupation’. As stated in the scenario ‘whilst taking his first tour’. It can be argued for Mr Corn to be bound by the other two people’s interest in occupation as before the sale was made, Mr Corn should have carried out a reasonable check upon anyone else in occupation of the land.
A lease which is for 3 years is bound to the whole world despite not being created on a deed s54 (2).
If an easement is created by a deed it becomes legal and the purchaser will automatically be bound. The fact that Heather had produced a document signed by Farmer Field and made payment, this can constitute to a legal easement. Therefore it can be argued that Mr Corn is bound by this easement.
However equitable easement arising or created after 1925 will only bind the buyer if it has been registered on to the land under Class D (iii) in the Land Charges register. If there is no such registration then Mr Corn shall not be bound by that particular easement.
Equitable interests after 1926 in unregistered land falls under family interests. Interest under a trust s27 (2) enables beneficial interests under a trust to be overreached, providing that the purchase money is paid to at least two trustees or a trust corporation. Mr Corn could have overreached by paying Daisy as well as Farmer Field. Daisy can not take action against Mr Corn as the breach of trust has taken place by Farmer Field. As shown in the case of Williams & Glyn ‘the wife’s right to remain in the property was upheld’. If overreached the purchaser takes free.
TABLE OF CASES-
Celsteel Ltd v Alton House Holdings Ltd [1985] 2 ALL ER 562
Chhokar v Chhokar [1984] F.L.R 313
Holland v Hodgson (1872) LR 7 CP 328
Hollington Brothers Ltd v Rhodes [1951] 2 ALL ER 578
Hunt v Luck [1901] 2 Ch. 428
Leigh v Taylor [1902] ac 157
Midland Bank Ltd v Farmpride Hatcheries Ltd (1981) 260 EG 493
Spiro v Glencrown Properties Ltd [1991] Ch. 237
Vaudeville Electric Cinema Ltd. v. Muriset [1923]
Williams & Glyn’s Bank Ltd v Boland [1981] AC
TABLE OF STATUTES-
Land Registration Act 2002
Law of Property Act 1925
BIBLIOGRAPHY-
Books-
D Bell. C- The Law Of Real Property- 5th edition- London- (1997)
Thompson. M P- Land Law- third edition- Oxford New York- (2001)
Internet-
Definition of Property Law- lecture notes
Fixtures/fittings- lecture notes
Registered land- lecture notes
Unregistered land- lecture notes
D Bell. C- The Law Of Real Property- 5th edition- London- (1997) p. 57
Definition of Property Law- lecture notes- slide 10
Definition of Property Law- lecture notes- slide 24
Thompson. M P- Land Law- third edition- Oxford New York- (2001) p. 118
Williams & Glyn’s Bank Ltd v Boland [1981] AC
Land Registration Act 2002
Land Registration Act 1925
Registered land- lecture notes- slide 8
Hunt v Luck [1901] 2 Ch. 428
Fixtures/fittings- lecture notes- slide 3
Fixtures/fittings- lecture notes- slide 6
Thompson. M P- Land Law- third edition- Oxford New York- (2001) p. 15
Vaudeville Electric Cinema Ltd. v. Muriset [1923]
Leigh v Taylor [1902] ac 157
Thompson. M P- Land Law- third edition- Oxford New York- (2001) p. 72
D Bell. C- The Law Of Real Property- 5th edition- London- (1997) p. 55
Unregistered land slide 13
D Bell. C- The Law Of Real Property- 5th edition- London- (1997) p. 37
Hunt v Luck [1901] 2 Ch. 428
Thompson. M P- Land Law- third edition- Oxford New York- (2001) p. 484
Unregistered land- lecture notes- slide 28
Unregistered land- lecture notes- slide 30
Williams & Glyn’s Bank Ltd v Boland [1981] AC
