Archive for April 2007
A court is entitled as a matter of construction to refer to a draft lease and infer words omitted in the actual lease where it is clear words have been omitted and what is the gist of those words.
It was plain that the owner of a property had not expressly or by implication granted a tenancy to the occupier prior to the coming into force of the Housing Act 1996, s.96.
Adealon International Proprietary Ltd v London Borough of Merton  EWCA Civ 362 (25 April 2007)
Where there was a realistic possibility of alternative access over land belonging to third parties and a right of way had not been expressly reserved in the transfer of the land, a claim to such a right must fail.
The division of a property to be divided on the breakdown of the relationship of a cohabiting couple where it had been conveyed into joint names without an explicit declaration of their respective beneficial interests was on the basis that where there was joint legal ownership there was also joint beneficial ownership. If this is challenged, the onus lies on the challenger to show why the beneficial interests should lie differently.
Musing over the Court of Appeal judgment ( EWCA Civ 236) today, it struck me that the case does something rather dramatic to the issue of tolerated trespassers, extending the thrust of Swindon v Aston  HLR 610.
What we knew from Swindon v Aston was that a tolerated trespasser could not apply to the Court [...]
I was scanning the Court of Appeal judgments, waiting for White v Knowsley, when this came up:
London & Quadrant Housing Trust v Ansell  EWCA Civ 326
Now that is interesting. Not so much for the conclusion – although the argument is imaginative – but for unappealed County Court findings and obiter by the Court of [...]