Whether thingy can orevent woman from using
In the first portion of the job Brian wants to cognize if he can forestall Stella from utilizing his private road to entree a field she owns. Whether he can make this depends on whether Stella can set up that she has required this right as an easement.
An easement is basically a right of belongings that is enjoyed or exercised over person else’s land. [ 1 ]
For a right to be as an easement it must run into with the four standards inRe Ellenborough Park ( 1956 ) CH 131:
1. There must be a dominant and a servient tenement
2. The easement must profit the dominant tenement
3. The dominant and servient tenements must be owned or occupied by different individuals
4. The easement must be capable of being the capable affair of a grant.
In this instance we can see that it fits the first three standards. There are dominant and servient tenements, the easement is attached to the land and benefits it ( the dominant tenement ) and they are owned or occupied by different individuals.
Finally, an easement must be capable of being expressly conveyed by title, there must be a grantor and a grantee, and the rights must be clearly described and precise. [ 2 ] Stella has produced a title that on the facts we are given suggests this is the instance. Furthermore a right of manner has antecedently been established as an easement as inBorman V Griffiths ( 1930 ) 1 CH 493. The trouble in this instance is that the servient land has been conveyed to a 3rd party ‘Brian” and he wants to cognize if her rights are enforceable against him.
An easement can be acquired expressly, or by deduction under the regulation inWheeldon V Burroughs ( 1879 ) 12 CH D 31or s62 of the Law of Property Act ( 1925 ) [ 3 ] . In this instance it was acquired expressly as Stella has produced a title, nevertheless has this created a legal easement which would adhere Brian, or is it simply a contract that may give rise to an just easement, which is less secure.
In order to make a legal involvement in land s52 ( 1 ) LPA ( 1925 ) requires a title to be executed. Furthermore an easement can merely be legal where it is created for the proper length of clip ; it can last everlastingly like a fee simple, or it can be a period of clip with a fixed beginning and an terminal, like a rental. ( s1 ( 2 ) ( a ) LPA 1925 )
In this instance we do non hold a term of old ages absolute, nevertheless “successors in title” suggests it may be tantamount to an estate in fee simple as its being is ageless. A fee simple is basically a ageless right to the land notwithstanding the deficiency of inheritors or a will. To farther complicate affairs, under the Law Reform Act 2002 s 27 ( 2 ) ( vitamin D ) [ 4 ] a legal temperament expressly granted is a registerable temperament and will non run at jurisprudence until registered.
The enrollment demands are besides set out in paragraph 7 of Schedule 2, where it states that a notice must be entered in the registry for the servient land and, if the dominant land is besides registered, the benefit must be entered in the registry for the dominant land. If a dominant proprietor of an easement fails to substantively register his right the easement will take consequence merely as an just involvement.
On the facts given it suggests she hasn’t registered the easement as if she had it would hold been seeable on the registry for all to see. However, Schedule 12 of the LRA ( 2002 ) paragraphs 9 and 10 provide a province of grace leting for a legal easement to take consequence as an overruling involvement from 3 old ages get downing on the 13ThursdayOctober 2003. If Stella has managed to register her easement after Brian acquired the belongings and before the 13ThursdayOctober 2006, she would hold an paramount involvement binding Brian.
If we assume she has non managed to make this, so this would give rise to an just easement. As rubric was registered when Brian acquired it whether the easement is enforceable depends on the rules of registered land. As the just easement was created after the LRA ( 2002 ) it can non be an paramount involvement, as Schedule 3 paragraph 3 merely allows legal easements created on or after October 2003 to be overruling in their ain right.
Furthermore I besides think that it would be hard to set up an paramount involvement under agenda 3 paragraph 2 as its range is non every bit broad as s70 ( 1 ) ( g ) of the LRA ( 1925 ) The new jurisprudence excludes a individual whose business “would non hold been obvious on a moderately careful review of the land” , hence transeunt usage of a private road could barely be recognised as existent business. Therefore this just easement will merely be adhering if it was already protected by the entry of a notice on the charges registry of Greenacre. If she has non done this so Brian can forestall her from utilizing the private road.
In the 2nd job Brian wants to cognize if the understanding Fred has foremost sums to a rental or a license, if it is a rental so it is an estate in land capable of adhering 3rd parties whereas a license is strictly a personal right to busy land and non adhering on 3rd parties. InStreet V Mountford ( 1985 ) AC 809Lord Templeman said that wherever sole ownership of premises is granted for a term at a rent, so prima facie a rental will be created.
We are told that the understanding Fred has, appears to hold all the footings of an alleged rental, so we can presume that the understanding alludes to all that is necessary to make a rental i.e. the granting for a term ( 5 old ages ) , at a rent with sole ownership, the landlord supplying neither attending or services. However under the LPA 1925 s 52 ( 1 ) a title must be used to make a legal estate in land. There is an exclusion to this refering leases non longer than three old ages, nevertheless on the facts this will non use to Fred’s rental, as it is for 5 old ages and we are told it is an understanding non a title. Where the understanding in authorship has non been executed as a title, so supplying it complies with s2 of the Law of Property ( Miscellaneous commissariats ) Act 1989 as to signatures, it will make a contract to make the involvement.
Under the philosophy inWalsh V Lonsdale ( 1882 ) 21b ChD 9the grantee has an just involvement that equity will recognize and protect, and may be prepared to allow specific public presentation of ( necessitating Brian to put to death a valid legal rental. ) This redress is discretional and is awarded merely harmonizing to just rules. For illustration the party seeking the just redress ( Fred ) ‘must come to equity with clean hands’ so if he is in arrears or in breach of the understanding so an just redress will non be available to him.( Coatsworth V Johnson ( 1886 ) 54 LT 520 )However the disadvantages of an just rental are the same as to all just involvements, they may non adhere a buyer of the legal freehold estate in the land.
In registered land an just rental is neither registerable substantively, nor an paramount involvement under the LRA ( 2002 ) Agenda 3, paragraph 1. However it may go an paramount involvement under the LRA 2002 Schedule 3 paragraph 2 if the renter is in existent business and satisfies the demands of the paragraph.
Unfortunately the new jurisprudence has non provided us with a definition of ‘actual occupation’ therefore it is thought that the bing instance jurisprudence will use. Nonetheless the new statute law provinces explicitly that a buyer is non bound by an involvement, ( absent existent cognition ) if the ‘occupation would non hold been obvious on a moderately careful review of the land at the clip of the temperament. “ [ 5 ]
The diction ‘obvious’ is really of import and the Law Commission have stressed that this is a really calculated component [ 6 ] furthermore it is the business that must be obvious non the fact of the resident holding a good involvement.
First it is of import to observe that busying premises other than houses have been the topic of old instances. InMalory Enterprises LTD V Cheshire places ( UK ) Ltd ( 2002 ) EWCA Civ 151, itwas found that fencing and set abouting minor ownership activities such as storage on piece of creaky land could amount to ‘actual occupation’ Furthermore, Fred does non hold to be on the land at the clip of review, for existent business to be. [ 7 ]
Following theses instance if Fred had undertaken similar Acts of the Apostless, such as the plowing of the field for seting at the clip of the temperament ( completion ) so he may be seen to be in ‘actual occupation’ and the just rental may adhere on Brian.
Brian’s concluding job concerns John who is claiming that he has a good involvement in Greenacre, he states that he made a significant part to the purchase monetary value, and that it has been sold without his cognition, whilst he was working off. He now wants to come and populate in the house, and claims that all his properties are still at that place, nevertheless Brian has found his properties in boxes in the Attic.
First we need to set up if John has a good involvement in Greenacre, via a trust, as he was non on the legal rubric. If we are to happen an involvement it will be under the jurisprudence of ensuing or constructive trusts, as at that place seems to be no express written declaration of trust. A resulting trust tends to be implied where there is a part made to the purchase monetary value of the house, if John has done this ( as is suggested ) and this is in the absence of grounds that it was a gift or a loan so he has a good involvement in proportion to the extent of his part.( Drake V Whipp ( 1995 ) 28 HLR 531 )
Furthermore, under the LRA ( 2002 ) Agenda 3 paragraph 2, John may hold an paramount involvement if he can turn out that he was in ‘actual occupation’ at the clip of completion. ( The same statute law as antecedently mentioned for the job with Fred ) The job here lies once more with what is existent business. Fred was at sea ( or at work ) when the sale happened and it is unsure whether go forthing premises for that long will be seen as ‘actual occupation’
InChokar V Chokar ( 1984 ) FLR 313the resident had gone to hospital to give birth to her boy, whilst she was off her hubby transferred the house to a buyer and the buyer changed the locks to forestall her from returning. In this instance it was decided that traveling into infirmary is no different from traveling on vacation, it does non consequence existent business. InKingsnorth Finance Co Ltd v Tizard ( 1986 ) 2 ALL ER 54 ( 1986 ) 1 WLR 783, a married woman who was separated from her hubby claimed to be in existent business when she didn’t even live in the house, nevertheless she visited it every twenty-four hours to look after the kids, she kept apparels at that place and on occasion stayed overnight. Although she was non populating at that place Judge Finlay QC said her day-to-day activities might be regarded as sufficient to warrant the consequence. Both of these instances suggest that John does non hold to be in the house itself for the tribunals to see him as in ‘occupation’ nevertheless the tribunals have yet to make up one’s mind a instance where a individual is off for a considerable sum of clip due to his work.
Another factor to see in this country is the fact that when John left for work his properties were in the house, nevertheless they are now in boxes in the Attic. This suggests that his properties were hidden to take all grounds of him to a possible buyer. The consideration under paragraph 2 stresses the fact that business has to be obvious to a buyer at the clip of temperament. However when inspecting Greenacre Brian or the conveyancer would hold had no ground to surmise that John lived at that place. For this ground I believe that the tribunal would non happen John in ‘actual occupation’ and therefore he would non hold an paramount involvement binding against Brian.
Finally, there is one more factor to see, when Brian bought Greenacre he did non pay money to two legal guardians or a trust corporation, he paid it to one, ( Diane ) and hence there can be no overreaching.( Williams & A ; Glyns Bank Ltd V Boland ( 1981 ) AC 487 ( 1979 ) Ch 312 )Unfortunately Brian takes rubric topic to the rights of the donees, in this instance John.
I like to believe that Brian and John may be able to come to some personal understanding to decide this affair. However the fact that John wants to populate in the house, and presumptively Brian does desire him at that place suggests that this will non be the instance. This may take to John doing an application to the tribunal under s 14 ( 1 ) of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act ( 1996 ) ; this allows any donee of a trust of land, or anybody with an involvement in the trust belongings to use to the tribunal, which under s14 ( 2 ) may do any order it thinks tantrum:
( a ) relating to the exercising by the legal guardians of any of their maps
( B ) declaring the nature and extent of a person’s involvement in the belongings topic to the trust.
Section 15 of the act besides expressly indicates how a tribunal should exert this discretion. An unsatisfactory decision can possibly be found inRodway V Landy ( 2001 ) CH 703This was a instance where doctors no longer wanted to portion the same premises, one wanted a sale the other didn’t, and the tribunal ordered that the belongings should be physically divided into two.
Bogusz, B, “Bringing Land Registration into the Twenty-first Century – The Land Registration Act 2002” MLR 2002, 65 ( 4 ) , 556-567
Gray & A ; Gray, Core Texts: Land Law ( 4th edn, 2005, OUP )
Green & A ; Cursley, Land Law ( 5th edn, 2004, Palgrave Macmillan )
Law Commission, Land Registration for the Twenty-first Century ( 2001 ) Law Com No 271
Martin, EA ( ed. ) , Dictionary of Law ( 2003, OUP )
Smith, R, Property Law: Cases and Materials ( 2nd edn, 2003, Longman )
Thomas, M, Blackstone’s Statutes on Property Law 2005-2006 ( 13th edn, 2005, OUP )
Thompson, M, Modern Land Law ( 2nd edn, 2003, OUP )
Law Commission, Land Registration for the Twenty-first Century ( 2001 ) Law Com No 271