Case Law

Question 1

Buckland vs Butterfield 1820

Answer 1

A verandah on a brick foundation attached to a house held to be a fixture as a demonstration of the degree of annexation test

Question 2

Holland vs Hodgson 1872

Answer 2

A spinning loom fixed to the floor of a mill was held to be a fixture as demonstration of the degree of annexation test

Question 3

Aircool Installations vs British telecommunications 1995

Answer 3

An air conditioning unit attached onto a building was held to be a fixture as demonstration of the degree of annexation test

Question 4

Culling vs Tufnal 1694

Answer 4

A Dutch barn was held to be a fitting as resting on its own weight and no foundations attaching to ground

Degree of annexation test

Question 5

Hulme vs Bingham 1943

Answer 5

Heavy printing machinery found to be fitting as not secured to the floor in any way

Degree of annexation

Question 6

Leigh vs Taylor 1902

Answer 6

Court critical
Of previous D’Eyncourt vs Gregory decision

Tapestries fixed to the walls held to be fittings

Question 7

RBS vs Beyak 1981

Answer 7

A mobile home held to be a fitting under purpose of annexation test

Question 8

Hamp vs Bygrave 1983

Answer 8

Large urns, a statue and a lead trough held to be fixtures as D’Eyncourt vs Gregory under the purpose of annexation test

Question 9

Botham vs TSB Bank PLC 1997

Answer 9

Bathroom fittings and kitchen units held to be fixtures as required for the use and enjoyment of the property. However, carpets, curtains, white goods, gas fires all deemed to belong to Bothams as fittings.

Question 10

Tulk vs Moxhay 1848

Answer 10

Case in which it was decided that a burden of a covenant would bind the purchaser of the land

Case that created the doctrine of restrictive covenants

Elms purchased part of some land from Tulk and Covenanted to keep it as garden land. Tulk sold to Moxhay who wanted to build on land. It was held that Moxhay was bound by the covenant as he was aware of it

Question 11

Kingsnorth Finance vs Tizard 1986

Answer 11

Mr Tizard owned property as sole proprietor. Applied for loan from kingsnorth.

Mr & Mrs not happily married, Mr obtains advance and disappears leaving loan unpaid

Mrs Tizard opposed possession order

Court held with Mrs Tizard as surveyor was aware of children’s bedrooms and should have questioned Mr Tizard more in respect of his matrimonial status

Question 12

Bull vs Bull 1955

Answer 12

Mother and son made contribution to cost of property but property owned by son only

Both lived at property, but when sons wife came to live there they tried to evict mother

Son failed in action as court held son was trustee for himself and his mother

RESULTING TRUST

Question 13

D’Eyncourt vs Gregory 1866

Answer 13

Heavy ornamental statues were held to be fixtures and part of the history and design of the property

Demonstrates the purpose of annexation test as items were held to bring value to the land

Question 14

Hodgson vs Marks 1971

Answer 14

Mr Evans convinced Mrs Hodgson to transfer house to him for nil consideration

Court held that as no money changed hands, Evans held as trustee for hodgson who had the beneficial estate

RESULTING TRUST

Question 15

Curley vs Parkes 2004

Answer 15

Unmarried couple

Parkes purchased using money from previous property and had mortgage in her name - both contributed to cost of living

Curley maintained resulting trust created as contribution made

Court decided trust ‘crystallises’ on purchase. Contributions made afterward do not make a resulting trust

Question 16

Laskar vs laskar 2008

Answer 16

Case in which court decided that contributions to repayment of a mortgage could give rise to a resulting trust

Difference between this and Curley vs Parkes is that laskar vs laskar was land purchases for investment purposes

Question 17

Pettit vs Pettitt 1970

Answer 17

House in wife’s name only but husband maintained he increased value by decorating so had beneficial interest through a resulting trust

House of Lords said no evidence of common intention to share the house

Question 18

Gissing vs Gissing 1971

Answer 18

House purchased in husbands name

He paid mortgage she made contributions to the household.

She said she had made those payments so he could pay the mortgage meaning she had a beneficial interest

Court decided that there was no common intention to have joint beneficial interest

Question 19

Burns vs burns 1984

Answer 19

Not married, long relationship

Mrs stayed at home and looked after their children.

Mr owned house, Mrs claim for beneficial interest was not upheld as it was decided that contributions to household expenses and caring for children did not entitle someone to beneficial interest under a resulting trust

Question 20

Bannister vs Bannister 1948

Answer 20

Sister transferred property at undervalue to brother on the basis that she could live there for the rest of her life rent free

Nothing documented. He tried to evict her

Court upheld that their informal bargain created a constructive trust and sister could live at the property

Question 21

Eves vs Eves 1975

Answer 21

Husband to wife couldn’t go on title as too young. Not true

Wife contributed financially

Court decided that intention was joint interest, stopped only by husbands lie

Question 22

Lloyds bank Plc vs Rosset 1991

Answer 22

Mr rosset owned solely. Took out loan with lloyds and defaulted.

Mrs challenged on the basis she had an interest in the property as it was agreed that it was the family home and she had arranged to renovations

Court decided no evidence of constructive trust or shared ownership

Question 23

Stack vs Dowden 2007

Answer 23

Unmarried couple

Jointly owned property - assumed receive half proceeds each unless could be otherwise proved

Dowden made more of a contribution, paid for more of the outgoings although contributed jointly to mortgage

Initially found 50/50

On appeal, 65% to Dowden

Question 24

Jones vs Kernott 2010

Answer 24

Initially held that Ms Jones benefitted from 90% ownership as she provided most deposit monies, and took over sole responsibility of outgoing when they split up

Kernott appealed and judge decided that kernotts renovation of the property and the fact that they owned jointly since 80s.

Judge decided with Kernott - against the previous decision of stack vs Dowden

Question 25

Kinch vs Bullard 1998

Answer 25

Wife posted notice of severance of joint tenancy to husband. Husband suffered heart attack. She intercepted and destroyed the letter as the husband died. Court decided that regardless of whether the notice had been received or read, the action effected the severance NOTICE IN WRITING

Question 26

Burgess vs Rawnsley 1975

Answer 26

Met, became friends, contributed half and half to purchase of a house and owned as joint tenants He thought they would marry, she thought they were friends and she would live in upstairs flat They realised misunderstanding and started to negotiate so he could buy her share Nothing was agreed and he died suddenly. Court decided they had had enough negotiation to constitute a severance of joint tenancy by mutual agreement SEVERANCE OF JOINT TENANCY BY MUTUAL AGREEMENT

Question 27

Dillwyn vs Llewellyn 1862

Answer 27

Father owned land, gave possession to son and signed an informal memo stating he wanted son to have the land to build a house Father died, executors brought a case against the son Generally, equity will not perfect an imperfect gift, but in this case executors ordered to convey fee simple to son ESTOPPEL

Question 28

Ramsden vs Dyson 1866

Answer 28

Claimant was a tenant who built on the land in expectation of receiving a long lease Estoppel based on encouragement and acquiescence Failed in this case however

Question 29

Inwards vs Baker 1965

Answer 29

Son built on fathers land. Son did work himself although father contributed some of cost Father died in 1951, in 1953 step mother and children tried to take possession proceedings Possession order granted but went to court of appeal and judge stated there was an estoppel. Son allowed to stay as a life tenant

Question 30

Crabb vs Arun District Council 1976

Answer 30

Oral agreement between parties that crabb would be allowed a right of way to reach highway over council land Crabb divided land. Southern portion would be landlocked unless right of way granted Defendant council estopped from denying a right of way as there had been a detrimental reliance by crabb on informal agreement

Question 31

Gillett vs Holt 2000

Answer 31

Gillett given assurances by holt over a period of four decades that he would inherit farm Parties fell out. Holt changed his will so Gillett would receive nothing Whilst you cannot force someone to change their will whilst they are still alive, the court held that there had been a detrimental reliance on assurances made by holt to Gillett meaning that he did not pursue education or find property or security elsewhere Gillett got freehold to the farm and sum of money

Question 32

Jennings vs Rice 2002

Answer 32

Jennings worked as handyman for Mrs Royle for almost 30 years, eventually becoming her carer and not taking any money Jennings relied on statements made by Mrs Royle that she would take care of him financially When she died, Jennings expected to inherit. He was awarded only 200k of 1.285mil estate which was divided among her family Estoppel is designed to prevent the unconscionable from happening (I.e that he would be left penniless) not finding a disproportionate remedy

Question 33

Thorner vs Major 2009

Answer 33

For 30 years, thorner did work without pay on his cousins farm. Judge found that for 15 years thorner encouraged to believe he would inherit Court of appeal arrived at the decision that he should even though no representation or encouragement was made by the parties It was held that in this unusual case as the agreement was made by two taciturn and undemonstrative men who understood each other's intention

Question 34

Street v mountford 1985

Answer 34

Street drew up agreement that specifically stated was not a lease and did not give protection under the rent acts The agreement was ruled a sham by the House of Lords as it gave exclusive possession of the property to mountford

Question 35

Aslan v Murphy 1989

Answer 35

Basement room occupied by plaintiff. Plaintiff had exclusive possession but had to vacate everyday for 90 mins. Landlord retained a key. The court said that you had to look at the argument as a whole to determine whether licence agreement was a sham

Question 36

Antoniades v villiers 1990

Answer 36

Young married couple given licence to occupy one room each signing separate agreements Agreement states that another party could be added to the sitting room at any time No services were provided however and the court held that should one have been given notice to quit both would have. Therefore a lease was created

Question 37

AG Securities v Vaughn 1990

Answer 37

Case held at same time as antoniades v villiers. Separate agreements entered into by four occupiers over a three year period determined by a court not to constitute a tenancy

Question 38

Bruton v London &quadrant housing corporation 1999

Answer 38

Case in which court applied rules of street vs mountford with worrying out one Bruton had exclusive occupation of a flat from a charitable housing trust Sought tenancy rather than licence so works would be carried out. Charity didn't own property and argued they couldn't give a lease over what they didn't own Briton still awarded non proprietory lease

Question 39

Facchini v Bryson 1952

Answer 39

Exception to street v mountford Employee occupied a house for a weekly sum. Court decided it was a service occupancy and therefore a licence as the company would not have let him live there if he wasn't in their employment

Question 40

Booker v Palmer 1942

Answer 40

Exception to the street v mountford rule An evacuee from the war was allowed to live rent free at a cottage. Deemed a licence despite exclusive possession due to the exceptional circumstances

Question 41

Jones v Morgan 2001

Answer 41

Morgan a farmer who took a loan of£100k from an investment banker The agreement stated that Jones was entitled to purchase 50% of the business. He tried to enforce this (and sell his half share in the business) and Morgan refused The court decided as the deal was part of the mortgage agreement and the deal in respect of the half share was void ONCE A MORTGAGE ALWAYS A MORTGAGE

Question 42

Reeve v Lisle 1902

Answer 42

An option to purchase property (in this case a steam ship) was entered into 10 days after the parties agreed a mortgage. The court held that the two agreements were separate and therefore enforceable. This ruling is contrary to both Jobes v Morgan 2001 and Lewis v Frank Love 1961

Question 43

Lewis v Frank Love 1961

Answer 43

Court held that an option agreement contained in a separate agreement to a loan agreement between the pair was not enforceable as part of the same transaction

Question 44

Fairclough v Swan Breweries 1912

Answer 44

20 yr mortgage over a leasehold property of pub and hotel The date of redemption provided was a few weeks before the end of the tenancy and not any earlier This postponed the right of redemption and according to the court rendered the right to redeem illusory

Question 45

Knightsbridge Estates v Byrne 1940

Answer 45

The mortgage agreement stated that the mortgage could not be redeemed for at least 40 years Knightsbridge wanted to get out of the agreement as they found a cheaper deal House of Lords said they couldn't interfere as it was a bargain entered into at arms length As a general rule, a court is not willing to interfere with contractual terms CONTRAST TO FAIRCLOUGH V SWAN BREWERIES 1912

Question 46

Kreglinger v New Patagonia Meat Co 1914

Answer 46

Case in which a loan of money was made subject to the mortgagor selling all sheepskins at market price to the mortgagee for the first five years of the loan The court held that Kreglinger was allowed to make the advance to secure the sheepskin contract This was a collateral bargain entered into both parties freely and therefore enforceable NOT A COLLATERAL ADVANTAGE

Question 47

Multiservice book binding v Marden 1979

Answer 47

Interest payable was 2% over the minimum lending rate and would vary according to the sterling/Swiss franc exchange rate. Court held there was no evidence of an oppressive rate, and that the agreement had been entered into at arms length and there was no evidence of sharp practice

Question 48

Paragon Finances Plc v Nash 2002

Answer 48

The lender has a right to vary the interest rate of a mortgage as it sees fit in domestic cases In this case the court decided that there is an implied term in every mortgage that the power to vary interest rates would not be exercised dishonestly but that the decision could be taken for commercial reasons

Question 49

Cityland Property holdings v Dabrah 1968

Answer 49

The mortgagor had limited means and purchased the freehold of his property with the assistance of a loan of £2900 from his landlord The interest rate was set at 19%pa but because of a premium payable the total loan interest amounted to 57%! The judge held this was unconscionable and fixed the rate at 7%

Question 50

Allcard v Skinner 1887

Answer 50

A nun gifted her property to her mother superior Court deemed this was a scale of undue influence as the mother superior was in a ace of trust and abused it

Question 51

Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge 2001

Answer 51

The effect of this case brought about the Etridge Protocol. In order that the mortgagee can be satisfied there is no undue influence between parties entering into a mortgage agreement, the onus to investigate the risk is shifted into the solicitor acting for them The duty of the solicitor is to explain the nature of the charge and the risks for both parties and ensure that no undue influence is exerted by one party over another

Question 52

Trustee Savings Bank v Camfield 1995

Answer 52

Mrs stood as surety for her husbands business and a charge was placed over their matrimonial home It was made known to the lender by the solicitor that Mrs believed she would be responsible for £15k of the debt only. This was misrepresentation on the part of Mr. However, the court held that as the lender had not acted on the solicitors advice Mrs was only liable for £15k

Question 53

Hewett v First Plus Financial 2010

Answer 53

The lender was deemed not to have followed the Etridge protocol as they were put on notice that There was a possibility of undue influence