Property Law Key Cases Flashcards
Key cases Louise has mentioned (24 cards)
Re Rose [1952] Ch 499
Transfer of shares
The ‘every effort’ rule
Facts: Mr Rose gifted shares to his wife; executed transfer form & sent it to the company (Mar 1943); registration delayed until June (after his death).
Issue: Did the transfer take effect in March or June? Were the shares part of his estate?
Held: Equitable title passed in March—when Mr Rose had done everything in his power to transfer the shares. Legal title followed in June.
Constructive Trust: Until legal registration, Mr Rose held shares on constructive trust for his wife.
‘Every Effort’ Rule: Established that once a donor has done all they can (signed & dispatched documents), equity treats the transfer as effective—even if formal legal transfer is delayed.
Significance: Reinforced in Mascall v Mascall [1984] (applied to land): once all formalities are completed and documents are sent off, equitable ownership passes—even if legal title is not yet registered.
Milroy v Lord
Turner LJ- formality of trusts
Street v Mountford [1985] A.C.809
Summary
S granted M the right to occupy two rooms at a weekly rent under a “licence agreement” with a 14-day termination clause. Despite the agreement’s wording, the court ruled that since M had exclusive possession without services, the arrangement was a tenancy, not a licence.
Significance
The case established that the substance of an agreement, not its label, determines whether it creates a tenancy. It prevents landlords from avoiding tenant protections by misclassifying tenancies as licences.
Alteration and rectification of the Land Register
Walker v Burton [2013] EWCA Civ 1228
Summary
Villagers (W) sought to remove B from the Land Register, claiming their fell registration was mistaken. The court upheld B’s ownership, citing good faith, investment, and lack of competing claims.
Significance
Mistaken registration isn’t automatically corrected if proprietors act reasonably. The case underscores the role of possession, investment, and delay in land disputes.
Alteration and rectification of the Land Register
Knights
Construction v Roberto Mac [2011] 2 EGLR 123
Summary
K applied to rectify the Land Register after land mistakenly registered to the Salvation Army (S) was sold to R. The court ruled that R’s good faith purchase did not prevent rectification, as K was the rightful owner.
Significance
The case confirmed that mistaken registration can be corrected even after a sale to an innocent buyer. It upheld prior land law principles and ensured rightful owners could reclaim land despite registration errors.
Alteration and rectification of the Land Register
Derbyshire CC v Fallon [2007] EWHC 1326 (Ch)
Summary
A local authority sought to correct a boundary error in the Land Register but was denied, as exceptional circumstances made the alteration impractical. Despite proving ownership, the authority was ordered to pay part of the respondents’ costs.
Significance
The case confirms that land register corrections are discretionary and may be denied if they serve no practical purpose. It also highlights the nuanced approach to cost allocation in land disputes.
Limitations on ownership (including adverse possession of land)
R (Best) v Chief Land Registrar [2015] EWCA Civ 17
Facts
Mr Best occupied a derelict house from 2001 and lived in it from Jan 2012. He applied for ownership under Schedule 6 of the Land Registration Act 2002 based on 10 years’ adverse possession. The application was rejected because after Sept 2012, his occupation became a criminal offence under s.144 LASPO 2012 (criminalising trespass in residential buildings).
Held
Court of Appeal dismissed the Registrar’s appeal: s.144 LASPO did not prevent adverse possession claims. Parliament did not intend to change the law on adverse possession. Conduct criminalised under s.144 could still count toward adverse possession.
Significance
Confirmed that illegality under criminal law (squatting) does not bar adverse possession. The court prioritised the policy behind adverse possession: encouraging productive use of land and preventing land from becoming sterile. Parliament’s intent was to assist landowners, not to undermine the established doctrine.
Australian Law
Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1
the Australian High Court accepted it was impossible that Aboriginal peoples could be merely
‘trespassers on the land on which they and their ancestors had lived’
Views of property
National Provincial Bank v Ainsworth [1965] AC 1175
Lord Wilberforce statement
Lord Wilberforce
“However broad the line between property rights and personal rights may be, the wife’s rights clearly fall on the personal side. To qualify as a property right, an interest must be definable, recognizable by others, transferable, and possess some permanence or stability”
Personal property: Tangible (choses in possession)
Colonial Bank v Whinney [1885] 30 Ch.D 261
“All personal things are either in possession or action”
New forms of property?
Armstrong v Winnington [2012] EWHC 10 (Ch)
EU carbon emission allowances: carbon credits held to be ‘if not choses in action then certainly a form of other intangible property’:
New forms of property?
AA v Persons Unknown and Bitfinex [2019] EWHC 3556 (Comm)
demanded Bitcoin on 10th and 11th October 2019; Persons Unknown who own/control specified Bitcoin;
Mr Justice Bryan:
I consider crypto assets like Bitcoin to be property, as they meet Lord Wilberforce’s four criteria: they are definable, identifiable by third parties, transferable, and possess some degree of permanence.
statutory definition of ‘land’: s. 205(1)(ix) Law of Property Act 1925
LPA 1925 s. 205(1)(ix)
“Land” includes land of any tenure, and
mines and minerals, whether or not held apart from the surface,
buildings or parts of buildings (whether the division is horizontal, vertical or made in any other way) …
and an easement, right, privilege, or benefit in, over, or derived from land…
Real property (Land)
Mew v Tristmere Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 912
houseboats resting on wooden platforms supported by piles driven into the harbour bed; removal by a crane likely to result in their damage or destruction; held to be chattels as originally capable of floating and not intended to be permanent.
Real property (Land)
Elitestone v Morris [1997] 1 WLR 687
a chalet bungalow was held to be real property as it could not be moved (although it was only resting on its foundations) without completely dismantling it.
Views of property
Hill v Tupper (1863) 2 Hurlstone and Coltman 121, 159 E.R. 51
It was made clear that owners cannot create new types of property rights at will; they must accept established legal estates and interests as defined by precedent or legislation (per Pollock), and the law should not permit an endless variety of land interests (per Martin).
Easements and Freehold covenants
Re Ellenborough Park [1956] Ch 131
Facts:
Homeowners near Ellenborough Park had been granted the right to use the park “as a leisure garden.” During WWII, the government took over the park. Under statute, landowners were entitled to compensation if deprived of a legal right.
Held (Court of Appeal):
The right to use the park was a valid easement, entitling the owners to compensation.
Easements and Freehold covenants
Tulk v Moxhay (1848) 2 Ph 774
Leicester Square Covenant Case
A covenant required that Leicester Square remain a garden “uncovered with buildings.” When a purchaser tried to build on it, the court ruled:
The covenant did not automatically “run with the land” at common law.
However, equity binds those with notice—meaning any buyer aware of the restriction must honor it.
Result: Leicester Square remains a garden because successors in title were bound by the original covenant.
(Key principle: Even if not legally binding on future owners, equity enforces covenants against purchasers with notice.)
Tangible personal property
Dewar v. Dewar [1975] 1 WLR 1532
A mother gave her son money intending it as a gift (for a house).
The son viewed it as a loan, expecting to repay.
Legal Principle:
The donor’s (mother’s) intention governs—since she gave unconditionally, it was a gift, not a loan.
The son (donee) couldn’t unilaterally treat it as a debt or force repayment.
Key Takeaway:
A transfer is a gift if the donor voluntarily parts with ownership without expecting return.
A “loan” requires mutual agreement on repayment—one party’s belief isn’t enough.
(Simplified: If you give money freely, it’s a gift—even if the recipient misunderstands.)
Tangible personal property
Re Cole [1964] Ch 175
Facts:
A husband bought a house and told his wife while touring it: “It’s all yours”, referring to the furniture.
Later, the husband went bankrupt, and the Trustee in Bankruptcy claimed the house contents as part of his assets.
The wife argued the furniture was hers (a gift from her husband).
Court’s Decision:
❌ No valid gift – Ownership did NOT transfer to the wife.
Reason: Mere words of gift (“It’s all yours”) are NOT enough to legally transfer ownership.
Missing element: No actual or constructive delivery (e.g., handing over keys, moving items into her possession).
Since the husband retained control of the furniture, the gift was incomplete.
Key Legal Principle:
✅ For a valid gift of chattels (physical items), two things are required:
Intention to give (clear words or actions showing transfer of ownership).
Delivery (actual, constructive, or symbolic handover).
➡ Without both, no legal transfer occurs.
Outcome:
The Trustee in Bankruptcy won – the furniture remained part of the husband’s bankrupt estate.
Tangible personal property- constructive delivery
Thomas v. Times Book Co Ltd [1966] 1 WLR 911
Key Facts:
Dylan Thomas lost the original Under Milk Wood manuscript in a taxi.
A BBC producer made a copy, gave it to Thomas, and was told:
“If you can find the original, you can have it.”
Thomas then helped locate it by suggesting where to search.
Legal Issue:
Did this constitute a valid gift of the manuscript?
Court’s Holding:
✅ Yes – Effective constructive delivery occurred.
Reasoning:
Words of Gift
Thomas’s statement (“you can have it”) showed clear donative intent (conditional on recovery).
Constructive Delivery
By guiding the producer to the manuscript, Thomas placed him in a position to take possession, satisfying delivery.
Unlike Re Cole (where no transfer of control occurred), here Thomas actively enabled the transfer.
Why This Matters:
Constructive delivery can be valid even without physical handover if:
The donor relinquishes control, and
The donee gains actual possession (here, by finding it with Thomas’s assistance).
Contrast with Re Cole:
Re Cole failed due to no delivery (mere words, no transfer of control).
Here, Thomas’s actions + words completed the gift.
Takeaway:
A gift of chattels requires intent + delivery, but delivery can be constructive if the donor facilitates possession.
Tangible personal property- symbolic delivery
Lock v Heath (1892) 8 TLR 295
Facts:
A husband wished to gift his wife a set of furniture.
He physically handed her only one chair but said:
“I give you all the goods mentioned in this inventory.”
He then gave her an inventory listing all the furniture.
Legal Issue:
Was this a valid gift of all the furniture, despite only one item being physically delivered?
Court’s Holding:
✅ Yes – Effective symbolic delivery of the entire set.
Reasoning:
Words of Gift
The husband’s declaration (“I give you all…”) showed clear intent to transfer ownership of everything listed.
Symbolic Delivery
Handing over the inventory (a document representing the full set) + delivering one item (the chair) symbolized transfer of the whole collection.
The court accepted this as sufficient delivery for all items, not just the chair.
Key Legal Principle:
Symbolic delivery (e.g., transferring a key, deed, or inventory) can substitute for physical delivery if:
The donor intends to gift the property, and
The symbolic act clearly represents the transfer (e.g., an inventory standing in for furniture).
Contrast with Re Cole:
Re Cole failed because there was no delivery at all (just words).
Here, symbolic delivery (inventory + one item) perfected the gift.
Modern Application:
Similar logic applies to digital assets (e.g., transferring ownership via a signed list or token).
Takeaway:
Gifts require intent + delivery, but delivery can be symbolic if the act unambiguously represents the transfer.
