Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

Land Law > Land Law Cases > Flashcards

Land Law Cases Flashcards

(67 cards)

Start Studying
1
Q

Yaxley v Gotts

A

Proprietary estoppel. Oral agreement that Y would renovate and obtain ownership of place. G tried to sell to his son and denied agreement. He was estopped and Y granted a 99 year lease.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Harvey v Pratt

A

Leases require certainty as to start date and the length of term.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Prudential Assurance Rule

A

Certainty of the lease. 1930’s lease was requiring that the lease end when landlord needed it back for road widening. Void for uncertainty.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Berrisford v Mexfield

A

Certainty, month to month with no end date is too uncertain. Occupied month to month that can only be determinable if she stopped paying. It was too uncertain so they gave her a 90 year lease.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold

A

Rent is not necessary to create a tenancy. As long as an agreement is certain and they have exclusive possession/actual occupation.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Walsh v Lonsdale

A 
Equitable lease is as good as legal if the:
1) contract is valid
2) specific performance is available
3) protection by notice
Equity see's done what ought to be done
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Street v Mountford

A

Exclusive possession is the right to exclude the world. If Exclusive possession and certainty exists its a lease even if document doesn’t say so. S drafted an agreement that said license. it was held a lease.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Huwyler v Ruddy

A

Terms that Bar exclusive possession. Provision of services. Cleaning services 20 minutes every week.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Westminster v Clarke

A

Terms that Bar exclusive possession. Moving occupants. Homeless man could be moved from one room to another.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Antoniades v Villiers

A

Shame/pretence attempting to bar exclusive possession and create a license. Term that allowed introduction of new tenant into a 1 bedroom apartment. Both signed their own document at same time.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

PITT 4 unities

A

Possession: all possess equally
Interest: same period/rent. all derive same benefit.
Title: Single rather than separate agreements
Time: Acquired rights at the same time

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Mikeover v Brady

A

No unity of interest. Held to be a license. M was only liable by the documents to pay 1/2 the rent and couldn’t insist on paying the rent in full to obtain full interest.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Stribling v Wickham

A

No unity of Possession. 3 people signed agreements at the same time. They went to the landlord and he agreed to allow 2 replacements. The ability to alter tenants is a License.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Aslan v Murphy

A

Term is a sham intended to negate exclusive possession. a term that said they must vacate premises from 10-12 for cleaning, no cleaning provided.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Gray v Taylor

A

Exclusive possession exists but no lease because occupation for charity purposes.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Crane v Morris

A

Service Occupancy for Work is a bar to Exclusive Possession and creates a License.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Rugby School v Tannahill

A

Breach of covenant in lease. Not to be used as a brothel, was used as a brothel.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Fairclough v Swan Brewery

A

Clog/Fetter that restrict/postpones the right to redeem. 17 year lease on hotel where the right to redemption was postponed until 6 weeks before mortgage ended

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Knightsbridge v Byrne

A

two commercial parties postponed equity of redemption for 40 years because they received a preferential interest rate. It was allowed.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Jones v Morgan

A

Term Permitting the purchase of Land from the Mortgagor. 1994 mortgage to build nursing home. another mortgage in 1997 to allow buying of half share. Held a clog.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Samuel v Jarrah Timber

A

Term permitting the purchase of land from Mortgagor. Loan took security of stock with option to purchase 40% held void as clog.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Warnborough v Garmite

A

Term permitting the purchase of Land from Mortgagor can be valid so long as it is contained in a separate transaction from the mortgage.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Noakes v Rice

A

Solus Tie. To be valid it must end when the Mortgage Ends.Pub tied to a certain beer. Mortgage ends it becomes free house.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Bradley v Caritt

A

Solus Tie. To be valid it must end when mortgage ends. Mortgage clause that Mortgagee must be the Tea Broker. Once it ended they were no longer required.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Kreglinger v New Patagonia
Solus tie held allowable. Contract for supply of wool for 5 years was allowed on freedom of contract principles it wasn't onerous.
26
Esso v Harper
If the Solus tie is unreasonable then it will be struck out as a clog/ fetter. a 4 year tie on a mortgage was held reasonable where a 21 year tie was found to be too excessive.
27
City Holdings v Dabrah
If Interest rates are Unconscionable then the Court will adjust them to a reasonable level. Mortgagor needed to pay 19% per annum, held unconscionable and Court substituted 7%
28
Multiservice bookbinding v Marden
Interest rates. Clause that interest rates are to fluctuate according to the swiss franc was held to not be unconscionable and therefore valid.
29
Paragon Finance v Nash
Interest rates. Interest rates are not to be set dishonestly, for improper use, capriciously or arbitrarily.
30
Birmingham v Caunt
Common Law delay for possession by Mortgagee. Court allowed Mortgagor 28 days to repay the entire debt. Only available on reasonable prospects that the Mortgagor can repay.
31
Quennel v Maltby
Equity delay for possession by Mortgagee. q's wife bought the mortgage just to evict a tenant they didn't want. Only allowed if the Mortgagee is claiming it Bone Fide for enforcing security.
32
Cheltenham & Gloucester v Norgan
Section 36 AJA. Mortgagor likely to repay within a reasonable time. 2nd year of a 20 year mortgage held to be a reasonable time. They added a small amount to all future payments to repay the arrears.
33
National and Provincial Building Society v Llyod
Section 36 AJA. Mortgagor in positive equity and seeking to postpone possession to sell. Must be actively attempting to sell or have a buyer lined up. Simply putting it on the market isn't enough.
34
Palk v Mortgage service Fund
Court may direct a sale under s 91(2) LPA 1925 Possession by Mortgagee must be exercised in order to sell. The Mortgagee wanted to take possession to lease until prices rose. Not allowed.
35
Tse Kwong lam
Mortgagee can sell land to himself/employee so long as it is a fair transaction done in good faith. TKL sold to his wife unfairly.
36
Llyods Bank v Rosset
Constructive trust arises when: 1) Informal agreement, arrangement or understanding between A and B with B acting to their detriment 2) B makes direct financial contribution from which a common intention will be inferred.
37
Pankhania v Chandegra
Aunt contributed almost all; presumption of JT rebutter by | Express declaration in writing as to a TC. Express declaration as to TC in equity at 50/50 held
38
Williams v Hensman
3 methods of Common Law severance of Co-owners JT into TC in Equity. 1) Act on Ones Own Share 2) Mutual Agreement by all JT's to sever 3) Course of dealing by which all J/T's show they intend to become TC
39
Re Drappers Conveyance
Statutory Written Notice to Sever JT in Equity. Documents may impliedly sever. Divorce proceeding to sell house and split proceed severed JT
40
Re 88 Berkley Road
Statutory s 196 written notice to Sever JT in equity. Registered Post. severed unless returned undelivered. G sent letter by registered post to sever. G signed for it. She died. E never saw it but Severance had occurred.
41
Kinch v Bullard
Statutory S 196 (3) LPA 1925 written notice to Sever JT in equity. Leaving at last place of residence. Wife posted letter. Husband had heart attack. letter delivered by mail and destroyed. It severed JT upon landing at doorstep. She had to revoke before it arrived by communication
42
Gould v Kemp
Cannot sever JT by will.Survivorship will operate instead.
43
Burgess v Rawnsley
Severance of JT by Mutual agreement. Does not need to be written can be oral. Bought a house and orally agreed to buy other out. Though agreement unenforceable it severed
44
David V Smith
Course of dealing/conduct by which all JTs intend to sever. Modern view. Divorce negotiations to sever solicitors agreement. S dies, Joint intention to sever existed.
45
Barclay v Barclay
Express object of trust established at outset. The purpose of the trust was the sale of the land.
46
Buchanan -Wollaston convention
Express agreement within trust will be upheld. Neighbours bought land on trust to ensure no one bought and built on it.
47
Jones v Challenger.
Purpose for which Land is held. It was a matrimonial home. since it was no longer a matrimonial home the trustee's were allowed to realize its sale.
48
First national bank v Achampong
Interests of Secured Creditors under TOLATA. Courts want to protect the rights of a secured creditor and will usually force a sale.
49
Re Ellenborough Park
Easements 4 guidelines: 1) There must be 2 pieces of land 2) the right must benefit the dominant Land 3) the Dominant and servant owners must be different people 4) The right must be able to form the subject matter of a grant/deed. Houses had no backyards but all of them shared green space in front. It was held that they and an easement to use the froth garden.
50
Hill v Tupper
Easements. The right must benefit the land and not be a personal right. Right to put boats on canal was not a benefit for the land was a personal right.
51
Moody v Steggles
Easement. Right must benefit the land and not be a personal right. land was a pub hidden behind a building. Advertisement sign placed on addicted building was allied as the easement affected the land.
52
Copeland v Greenhalf
Cannot be easement if it effectively amounts to a claim of possession. Mechanic to park cars on neighbours land. Claim took too much possession of servant land.
53
Ward v Kirkland
When easement not too intrusive. Right to go on neighbours land to maintain a side wall was allowed as it was infrequent use.
54
Wright v Mcadam
Right of Old lady to store coal in shed could be considered an easement if the use wasn't too intrusive.
55
Wong v Beaumont.
Implied creation of Easement through necessity and common intention. It was necessary for them to install ventilation for the lease to give effect to not have smell and the common intention that the land be used as a restaurant.
56
Wheeldon v Burrows
Owner sells part of his land that he had originally created a quasi easement over his land. His other piece of land becomes the dominant tenement on sale.
57
Midland Bank v Green
Deals with Unregistered Land charges act. If it should eb registered as charge and isn't then its void. He gave son option to purchase farm which the son didn't register and was void.
58
Kingsnorth v Tizard
Overreaching. paid to 2 trustee's. If paid to 1 trustees interests will overreach if 1) notice is established or 2) interest could be determined by a reasonable inspection. beneficiary was wife. Husband took out mortgage and said he was single. he absconded. Bank had enough info on reasonable inspection to know of her interest nd therefore was bound.
59
Chokar v Chokar
In order for overreaching there must eb a property interest and actual occupation. Wife at hospital delivering baby was still enough to prove that she was in actual occupation.
60
Williams & Glyn Bank V Boland
For Registered Land in order for the interest to be Overriding the individual must 1) have a property interest 2) Be in Actual Occupation 3) their Occupation must be discoverable on a reasonable inspection of the land.
61
Stack v Dowden
Equity follows the law. The course of conduct of the party throughout their relationship had shown an intention to have a TC. Law presumes a JT, but their actions rebut this.
62
Bull v Bull
Co-ownership: Equity can presume a TC to exist when unequal contributions were provided, but this can be rebutted by express provisions in conveyance
63
Edwards v Llyods Bank
TOLATA Interest of Children 15 (1) (c)
64
Bank of Ireland v Bell
TOLATA Interest of Children 15 (1) (c)
65
Blenhaim v Ladbroke
Right to Park was granted as an easement.
66
Moncrief v Jameson
A right to Parking could exist so long as that right doesn't deprive the servant land the right of control/possession
67
Batchler v Marlow
Easement to 9 hours parking failed.

Land Law (2 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions