Landownership

Question 1

Cooper’s Trs v Stark’s Trs

Answer 1

1. When you are dealing with additional pieces of land, if there is a boundary description, then the pertinent has to be expressly described

Question 2

PMP Plus Ltd v Keeper of the Registers of Scotland

Answer 2

1. “A pro indiviso share with all the proprietors of all other dwellinghouses and flatted dwellinghouses erected or to be erected on the development … in and to those parts of the development which on completion thereof shall not have been exclusively alienated to purchasers of dwellinghouses or flatted dwellinghouses, which said parts comprise or shall comprise inter alia … other areas of open space”
2. This tried to convey a share in any property that would be left over when the development finished and hadn’t been allocated to a particular property
3. The issue here was the issue of specificity
4. You cannot give people a share in whatever property is left over because at the time you grant that share, you don’t know what that property is
5. You can only transfer ownership of a specific thing

Question 3

Lundin Homes Ltd v Keeper of the Registers of Scotland

Answer 3

1. They tried to do something similar
2. This was also held to be unsuccessful

Question 4

Crichton v Turnbull

Answer 4

1. There were pipeworks on top of the ground (the pipes were lying on top of the ground)
2. There was an attempt to say that these pipes were owned separately from the ground underneath them
3. The court disagreed and said that pipes accede to the ground underneath them

Question 5

Compugraphics International Ltd v Nikolic

Answer 5

1. There was a property next door to another property
2. An air conditioning system reached out over the land of the neighbouring property
3. An argument was made that the pipes were a separate legal tenement from the land underneath them
4. The court held that you cannot typically have separate legal tenements above the ground