Property Law article
Batsford Estates (1983) Company Ltd v Taylor & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 489 (29 April 2005)
There was a long standing dispute concerning the occupation of agricultural land. In 1985 a notice to quit was served on the occupier and one of the occupants claimed a life tenancy. Negotiations continued until the occupant died in 2000. The occupant’s children claimed adverse possession. The court held that the occupation was with the implied permission of the owner and he was entitled to possession.
Comments Off
Clowes Developments (UK) Ltd. v Walters & Ors [2005] EWHC 669 (Ch) (20 April 2005)
D1’s husband sold his land to C’s predecessor in title on condition he could live there rent free. D1 agreed to give vacant possession at any time and in 1989 C purchased the property and D1 left the property and her daughter and son-in-law (D2 and D3) moved in. In 2001 C sought to determine Ds’ licence. Defendants claimed adverse possession and the court held that D2 and D3 lacked sufficient intention to possess as they believed their entitlement to occupy was by virtue of permission given to D1 by the paper owner.
Comments Off
Foxtons Ltd v Thesleff & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 514 (19 April 2005)
The Appellant estate agency was entitled to receive commission when contracts had been exchanged but the purchase had not been completed. The terms of the contract were clear and provided the Appellant was entitled to receive the commission upon exchange of contracts.
Comments Off
Scammell & Ors v Dicker [2005] EWCA Civ 405 (14 April 2005)
The CA considered that it would be a complete injustice to conclude that a consent order settling a boundary dispute was void for uncertainty. Whilst it may be difficult to find the line of the disputed boundary on the ground, it was not practically or legally impossible to implement the parties’ agreement.
Comments Off
Generay Ltd v Containerised Storage Company Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 478 (23 March 2005)
The Appellant successfully appealed against a finding of adverse possession in relation to a strip of land to which the Respondent claimed to have acquired title. The CA found that the Respondent’s erection of a temporary fence with the intention of excluding itself from the strip amounted to an interruption of possession.
Comments Off
Beaulane Properties Ltd. v Palmer [2005] EWHC 817 (Ch) (23 March 2005)
The Defendant trespasser was held not to have acquired possessory title to a field by virtue of 12 years continued trespass in accordance with section 75 of the Land Registration Act 1925, as this was incompatible with the European Convention of Human Rights 1950 Protocol 1 Art.1.
Comments Off
Price & Ors v Leeds City Council [2005] EWCA Civ 289 (16 March 2005)
The Appellants were gypsies who moved onto the Respondent’s land. The Respondent
brought possession proceedings and the Appellants claimed a breach of their human
rights pursuant to ECHR 1950 Art 8. Where there was a conflict between a decision of
the House of Lords and the European Court of Human Rights concerning the a possible
violation of Art 8, the court was bound to follow the decision of the House of Lords. In
the circumstances the Appellants could not rely on Art 8 and the Respondent was entitled
to possession of the land.
Comments Off
Cobbe v Yeomans Row Management Ltd & Ors, Rev 1 [2005] EWHC 266 (Ch) (25 February 2005)
C and D agreed to develop land and C was to obtain a percentage of the
proceeds of sale. C was induced by D to apply at his own expense for planning
permission and spent considerable time and money doing so. D claimed that no
agreement existed. C’s reliance on a non contractual promise led the court to hold that a proprietary estoppel arose as a result of D’s unconscionable behaviour. C was awarded a half share of the increased value of the property as a result of obtaining planning permission.
Comments Off
Patel & Ors v Shah & Ors [2005] EWCA Civ 157 (15 February 2005)
The Respondents entered into a series of joint ventures with the Appellants’ predecessor
between 1989 and 1990. The property slump resulted in a shortfall between rental
income and re-mortgage payments. The Appellants’ predecessor failed to find the
shortfall. The Appellants were not entitled to enforce their beneficial rights as the
Respondents were entitled to rely upon the equitable defence of laches.
Comments Off