02/10/2023

Land law 

Land is valuable as it is an asset and represents wealth. It has usable resources.

It doesn’t move but it can be created (expensive).
But in general, on a micro level, it is also someone's home it is also a source of
inequality as not everyone owns a home, and some rent it.
Owing land is important so the transactions must be clear and protected by the law.
The land also has an important public function. = sitting at a park (a legacy from the
Victorian era), pubs…
Land is different from other things, if you buy land, you can’t quite fully claim it and
say it is yours. People may have rights over your land. A high degree of transparency
and certainty is needed.
Enforceability = Can I ensure to benefit from the benefits on the land? What rights do
I have over that certain land?
covenant = agreement between 2 parties
BASIC GUIDE: what to answer when dealing with a scenario problem.
1 What is the nature or type of property right?
2 How was the property right created? (this will ensure
whether the right can be enforced)
3 Has the property right been protected?

Principles in land law:

1. has to be predictable, has to be CERTAIN about the rights, the ownership etc. =
CERTAINTY
You have to find out who owns the lands: this can be done through an unregistered
system (title) (the old system, when proving ownership is by title deed, through
documentary evidence you own the land) and a registered system (title)= all the
information of ownership you go on the nationally held land registry. (who owns it +
what third party there are).
If you own land you can go to the nationally held register to find out information. To
prove ownership and rights.
The written agreement ensures certainty and transparency. CONTRACT
equity provides remedies that are appropriate. an example being INJUNCTIONS (stop
from doing something), and SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE (force someone to do
something).
2. Sensitive to various situations = AGREEMENTS ARE NOT ALWAYS MADE IN A
FORMAL SENSE/WRITTEN DOWN
*There has to be a safety net. This is where equity comes in.
informal agreements (made for example between family members): when nothing is
written down, under certain circumstances a property right can BE created informally
(propriety estoppel)
3. Fairness and justice = APPROPRIATE BALANCE of the INTERESTS/COMPETING
GOALS OF THE PARTIES.
This can be done through foreclosure: when people don’t keep up their payments to
the banks for their mortgage loans, this is when the bank takes the whole asset back,
sells it, and if there is any equity in that property, they will keep it. Even if the whole
lot is far more than what the people owed. However, flexibility and communication
between banks and borrowers are advised by courts. ENSURE FAIRNESS AND
JUSTICE.
4. Alienability
(multiple people might own the land)
Buy and sell Land easily. In 1925 land law reform to make Land transactable.
Recognise that there is a fragmentation of rights. there can be bundles of rights
attached to land, rights enjoyed simultaneously.

GLOSSARY: SOME things can hinder the enjoyment of the ownership of

land.
Freehold estate: You own the property. An estate in land which provides the holder of
the estate with rights of ownership. There are several different types of freehold
estate. The most common are fee simple which is effectively absolute ownership of
the land; and Life estate, which effectively means ownership for the duration of the
holder's life.
Leasehold estate: tenant. An estate in land which provides the holder of
the estate with rights of possession and use of the land but not ownership.
The freehold is retained by the freeholder who grants the lease (also referred to as a
tenancy) as the landlord (also referred to as the lessor) to the holder of the estate,
who is referred to as the tenant or lessee.
Mortgages: (if you own a property, it might be through a mortgage) paying the
repayments to the bank regularly. It transfers legal title to the Mortgagee and
prevents the mortgagor from dealing with the mortgaged asset while it is subject to
the mortgage. a legal mortgage over land is now normally created by a document
creating a "charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage" rather than by
the mortgagor transferring the legal title to the land to the mortgagee.

Freehold covenants: restrictions on the enjoyment

Easements

Profits à prendre

Home right

Trusts
Proprietary Estoppel

Option to purchase; Pre-emption right.

What is land?
s205(1)(ix) Law of Property Act 1925
Land includes land of any tenure, mines and minerals, whether or not held apart
from the surface, buildings or parts of buildings (whether the division is horizontal or
vertical or made in any other way) and other corporeal hereditaments; also a manor,
advowson, and a rent and other incorporeal hereditaments and an easement, right,
privilege, or benefit in, over or derived from land...
archaic language that can be ignored
corporeal hereditaments= physical land itself.
hereditaments= property right capable of being inherited
incorporeal hereditaments intangible property right capable of being inherited

Vertical dimension
‘He who owns the land owns everything reaching up to the very heavens and down
to the depths of the earth’. any minerals under the land etc..

03/10/2023 

TENURES AND ESTATES

(What is the nature or type of property right?)

tenures = the crown owns all the land.

TEANUTE = TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE KING AND
THE TENANT. = to hold. How the king held land for exchange of provision of services.
Quia empores= ban this service yv = cannot grant land for return of provision of
services.
*Importance of writing a will = if no will is written, it can go back to the Crown.

OWNING a property? we actually own an estate in land, so the length of time for
which the land was held.
An estate = length of time for which the land was held = time is actually owned.
Walsingham case: an estate in land is the time in the land.
there are diversities of estate= different times.
key types of estates:
freehold estate: free simple, fee tail and life estate,
leasehold estate.
freehold: duration is uncertain, you can’t tell when the estate will end from the
outset.
lease you know when it will end.

Fee simple most substantial estate you can have. Close as to full ownership.
the duration of this estate goes on forever, its perpetual. (“has a time in a land
without end”)

LAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1925 s1(1)(a) an estate in fee simple absolute in possession.

fee= can be passed down (inheritance).

simple = unrestricted estate.
absolute= no conditions placed on the estate, absolute rights
possession= have the immediate right to use and enjoy the land

the legal owner of the property, so you actually own it.

(and can be proved through the national registry)

Fee tail = it’s smaller than the fee simple, it can be inherited, but it is very narrow.
can only be inherited by linear heirs. after 1996, (Trust of Land and Appointment of
Trustees Act 1996) no fee tail can be created anymore.

Life estate He who has an estate in land for life has no time in it longer than for his
own life.
*The life estate comes to an end once the person dies.
so, a person can sell their life estate for the duration of their life, and not for the
duration of the life of who is sold to you can only sell what you own.

leasehold = economic contractual relationship. Term of years absolute(s1(1) LPA 1925

exclusive possession for a period of time.
you have the right to exclude everyone, including the landlord. (permission to enter
the land is required).
fixed term = 6 months, 6 yrs, 99yrs etc.
or periodic = it automatically renews itself every period.

05/10/2023

LAW AND EQUITY. 

more claims were made to the king, which was delegated to the chancellor. the
decision was based on his moral code.
so, the chancellor's foot didn’t provide a degree of certainty.
chancellor sent it to the lawyer's court of equity.
Remedies available to the court= Injunction and specific performance.
He who comes to equity must come with clean hands.
Equity focuses on the substance.
it is not legal like, but “equitable” as it is about looking at the substance. it is about
enforcing it despite formalities not being satisfied for example. it is still valid, just like
a legal matter. equitable right can still be enjoyed, and it is only about enforcing it.

Legal property rights are enforceable in common law courts.

Equitable property rights are recognized and created by the Court of Chancery ( e.g.
right of a beneficiary under a trust)

FUSION OF THESE COURT UNDER ONE UMBRELLA: Supreme Court. JUDICATURE

ACTS 1873 AND 1875

However, in case of conflict, which court prevails?

s25 SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACT 1873- any conflict or variance
between the common law and equity, the rules of equity shall prevail.

DEVELOPMENT OF A TRUST: CLEAR SEPARATION OF OWNERSHIP: legal and equitable.

must properties in England and Wales are co-owned, so there’s a trust behind that
property.
legal ownership and equitable ownership are different.

legal owners can do what they like with the property (even if there is an agreement
to do otherwise) (common court)
equity courts would look at the substances of the agreement and would give effect to
it. ( taking care of a family) the beneficial interest is considered. trustees have A DUTY
to fulfil their obligation, and not for their own personal gain.

THE SETTLOR (he who creates the trust) whilst alive, he will be the one to give the
legal title ( OWNERSHIP) to the TRUSTEES to hold. they will become the legal owners
of the property but they are under duty to look after the trust for the benefit of the
BENEFICIARIES, they are the ones who hold the equitable title. They are the
equitable owners, they are recognised as co-owners in equity.

MODERN TRUSTS:
express trusts: written down, has to be in writing. the statutory requirement is under
s53 (1)(c) LPA 1925: it has/created to be in writing. This ensures transparency.

implied trust:

resulting trust: this is based on financial contributions of the parties at

the time of purchase. Courts presume parties hold equitable title in
proportion to their contributions. recognises beneficial interests in property
and will be co-owners in equity and have a half share each. IT IS AUTOMATIC IF THE
OTHER PARTY IS NOT A LEGAL OWNER.

constructive trust: BARGAIN BASED ON THEIR COMMON INTENTION IN

RELATION THE BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP. bargain can be implied, for example
by looking at financial contributions toward the house. (like mortgage payments after
the purchase). Or it could be expressed agreement/bargain: “If you contribute to the
mortgage then I'll give you a share in the house”.
it is based on evidence, what was said and what was financially contributed.
(mortgage/utility bills).

EXAMPLE; In February 2018, Amber purchased a house for herself and Sofiya to live in. Amber is the
sole registered proprietor. Sofiya started to contribute to the mortgage payments in June 2020
following an agreement with Amber to share the property.
Can Sofiya claim an interest in the land under a constructive trust?
The courts would construct a trust as Sophia is a co-owner TO PROTECT HER
INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY AS SHE DOES HAVE A BENEFICIAL interest: SHE PAID THE
MORTGAGE PAYMENTS TO HER DETRIMENT. the courts would consider HOW MUCH
SHE COULD GET based on evidence.

SUMMARY: Equity mitigates the harshness of the common law requirement for
formalities.
Equity is based on conscience (clean hands, so no fraud)
Equity: Broad range of remedies
Co-existence of equitable rights = have legal and equitable rights can be associated
with the property.

1925 LAND LAW REFORM AIMS:

* Alienability of land: land bought and sold easily, transactability.

* System of property rights = average person would be able to understand the
distinctions between owning, and renting, but also ensure a system of
binding/protecting land owned.
* Distinguish a commercial interest and a family interest like a trust = fragmentation
of benefit.
* Balancing the protection of purchasers and those of beneficial owners = finding
information and those having trust.

key changes:
Rationalisation of legal estates only 2 now: 1- the fee simple absolute in possession:
(that’s the freehold and is capable of being legal) and 2- and the terms of years
absolute = lease.
S1 (1) LPA 1925
max of 4 legal owners.

Reduction of legal interests: ONLY Easements, Rentcharge and Right of entry.

S1 (2) LPA 1925

Registration of title: what type of land you're dealing with. MOST OF ENGLAND AND
WALES’ LAND IS REGISTERED. Land Registration Act 2002.

Registration of land charges = as it was basically impossible to make ALL land

registered in 1925, so the change was incremental. AFTER 1925, when you create a
property right you have to check if you need to register it where title is unregistered:
you can still prove ownership by looking at the tile deeds BUT the commercial
interest ( those registered under contract)WOULD HAVE TO BE REGISTRED AS A LAND
CHARGE.
Land Charges listed in the Land Charges Act 1972

Balancing the protection of purchasers and those of beneficial

owners:
OVERREACHING: One of the main objects of the legislation of 1925 was to effect a compromise
between on the one hand the interests of the public in securing that land held in trust is freely
marketable and, on the other hand, the interests of the beneficiaries in preserving their rights under
the trusts’.
this removes the beneficial interest from the land and transfers it to the proceeds of
the sale. So when the purchaser is paying the purchase money (to a minimum of two
trustees) he overreaches the beneficial interest.
Interests of any person holding a beneficial interest under the trust
detaches from the property and shifts to the proceeds of sale (i.e.
purchase money).

FORM OF CO-OWNERSHIP
they each own a ¼ share as they all contributed to buying the property.

2 (legal owner) out of four now want to sell it (so what happens to the co-owners?)
what should the buyer do? he pays the 2 legal owners interested in selling to make
sure OVERREACHING OCCURS.
so, the other 2 are entitled to the money too AS THEY ARE STILL
BENEFICIARIES OF THE TRUST, but their interest is no longer attached to
the house it is now transferred to the proceeds of the sale. they still own
the quarter share, but now from the proceeds of the sale. As a
consequence of this overreaching the purchaser is not bound by the
beneficial interests because OVERREACHING HAS occurred when he paid
the minimum 2 trustees as required by statute, that is S.27 OF THE LAW
OF PROPERTY ACT, he fulfilled the requirements. their interests are now
dealt with under trust law.

TRUSTEES OBLIGATIONS
Trustees under a duty to act in the best interests of the trust (s6 TOLATA 1996)
(if they weren’t in the best interests of the trust, that’d be an issue to discuss with
the legal owners and beneficiaries, it is for them to sort out)

They are under no duty to ‘’obey’’ beneficiaries (s11 TOLATA 1996)

*Interest must be ‘capable’ of being overreached s2 LPA 1925

(LOOKING AT BENEFICIAL INTEREST IN TRUST)
( commercial interests are excluded as created by contract: easements, covenants)
*Excluded interests s2(3) LPA 1925

*The definition of the purchaser is wide ( s205 LPA 1925) (and includes a mortgage,
like a bank dealing with a mortgage)

*Applies to capital money and mortgages.

OVERREACHING APPLIES TO BOTH

UNREGISTERED AND REGISTERED LAND.
09/10/2023
FORMALITIES 

Is it legal or is it equitable?
framework:
*what is the nature/type of
property right?
*how was the property
right created?
*has the property right
been protected?
CATEGORIES OF PROPERTY RIGHTS:
ESTATES
S1 LAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1925
INTERESTS

this law provision helps in answering whether the property right is legal or not.

s1(1): LEGAL ESTATES

gives a list of estates which can be RECOGNISED AS legal:

(capable, can be, as long as the necessary formalities are fulfilled for it to be
recognised as legal) = so it is not automatic, IT CAN BE WHEN THE FORMALITIES ARE
FULFILLED.

-An estate in fee simple absolute in possession.

-A term of years absolute. = LEASE

s1(2): LEGAL INTERESTS

s1(2) The only interests or charges in or over land which are capable of subsisting or
of being conveyed or created at law are—
(a) An easement, right, or privilege in or over land for an interest equivalent to an
estate in fee simple absolute in possession or a term of years absolute;
(b) A rent-charge in possession issuing out of or charged on land being either
perpetual or for a term of years absolute;
(c) A charge by way of legal mortgage.
(d) [...] and any other similar charge on land which is not created by an instrument;
(e) Rights of entry exercisable over or in respect of a legal term of years absolute, or
annexed, for any purpose, to a legal rentcharge.
section (a) also includes profit à prendre even if not mentioned.
section (e) rights of entry are normally included in a lease, for example, where the
landlord, if there is a breach of a covenant in a lease, a breach of a term of a lease,
then they can take possession of the property and enjoy it themselves. RIGHT TO
RE-ENTER THE PROPERTY

So, does not automatically follow estate or interest IS actually legal.

easement= RIGHT TO CROSS SOMEBODY ELSE’S LAND

* it is capable of being legal, but it must be equivalent to an estate in fee simple
absolute in possession or a term of years absolute.

it has a duration requirement =

absolute in possession = the duration can go on forever.
term of years absolute = SET PERIOD or can be fixed/ or even periodic.
WHAT IS ITS POTENTIAL STATUS IF IT’S NOT LISTED
ABOVE IN S1(1) OR S1(2)?

yes, IN SECTION 1(3)

‘All other estates, interests, and charges in or over land take effect as
equitable interests’

5a CREATION AND TRANSFER OF LEGAL RIGHTS

Formalities provided in SECTIONS 52 of the Law of Property Act

1925:
CONVEYANCES TO BE BY DEED
All conveyances of land or of any interest therein are void for the purpose of
conveying or creating a legal estate unless made by deed.

What is a deed?
It’s a formal written document which is executed following statutory requirements
( found in s1(2) LP (MP)A 1989)
s1(2) LP (MP)A 1989

1.— Deeds and their execution.

(2) An instrument shall not be a deed unless—
(a) it makes it clear on its face that it is intended to be a deed by the person making
it or, as the case may be, by the parties to it (whether by describing itself as a deed or
expressing itself to be executed or signed as a deed or otherwise); and
(b) it is validly executed as a deed [—]
(i) by that person or a person authorised to execute it in the name or on
behalf of that person, or
(ii) by one or more of those parties or a person authorised to execute it in
the name or on behalf of one or more of those parties.
(3) An instrument is validly executed as a deed by an individual if, and only if—
(a) it is signed—
(i) by him in the presence of a witness who attests the signature; or
(ii) at his direction and in his presence and the presence of two witnesses
who each attest the signature; and
(b) it is delivered as a deed [...].

clear on the face = has the word deed on the document

witness attests= confirms that’s the true signature
delivers = the document is irreversible, and they intend to be bound by that deed
*signed unreversible and intended to be signed.

*Also, always put the date on to know when the deed started
*a deed has legal bearing and must be executed following statutory requirements.

EXCEPTION TO THE GENERAL RULE

s54(2) LPA 1925
Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act shall affect the creation by
parol of leases taking effect in possession for a term not exceeding three years
(whether or not the lessee is given the power to extend the term) at the best rent
which can be reasonably obtained without taking a fine.

*oral lease = exception to the rule only applies to leases of less than 3 years.
fine= so no lump sum to be paid just to obtain this lease.
IF A SHORT-TERM LEASE, IF REQUIREMENTS ARE FULFILLED IT IS RECOGNISED AS
LEGAL LEASE.

CREATION OF EQUITABLE RIGHTS:

Equitable interest and express trust (s53(1)LPA 1925) =NEEDS TO BE IN WRITING AND
SIGNED. NO NEED TO HAVE AN INTEREST, JUST NEEDS TO BE SIGNED
Grant of an estate or interest by a person who only owns an equitable interest = A
PERSON CAN'T GRANT A GREATER INTEREST THAN THEY ACTUALLY POSSESS.
SO, I CAN'T CREATE SOMETHING WHICH I HAVE NOT GOT.

Contract to create or transfer a legal estate or interest = DEALS WITH ALL THE TERMS
AND CONDITIONS THE PARTIES READ, AGREE AND SIGN.
this is particularly important during the conveyancing process.
when conveying property, so transferring a freehold estate, or even a long lease the
conveyancing process is normally a 2-stage process:
stage 1 – BINDING Contract.
you have a contract where the parties agree to the terms of the contract and
exchange contracts. This would include the price negotiated and inserted in the
contract. Also, what’s included in the sale: what’s inside the property? once they
agree to those, it is inserted in the contract. + Knowing if the property is being sold
with vacant possession: no occupiers in the property when being sold (like a tenant
unless you agree for them to be there.)
normally, after 20 days the contract has been signed you go for stage 2.
stage 2- Completion.
Here the legal estate is transferred when the transfer deed has been executed.

what is expected with regard to a contract?

s2 LP(MP)A 1989

2— Contracts for sale etc. of land to be made by signed writing.

(1) A contract for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land can only be
made in writing and only by incorporating all the terms which the parties have
expressly agreed in one document or, where contracts are exchanged, in each.
(2) The terms may be incorporated in a document either by being set out in it or by
reference to some other document.
(3) The document incorporating the terms or, where contracts are exchanged, one of
the documents incorporating them (but not necessarily the same one) must be
signed by or on behalf of each party to the contract.

So, after completion, when the transfer deed is executed. What is the buyer’s
position? when the seller remains the legal owner when they sign the contract?
here the buyer has an estate contract. ( the Equitable interest)
the contract will be recognized as a property right. it is although the parties have
transferred the property = completed.
this is when the APPLICATION OF MAXIM occurs.
‘Equity regards as done that which ought to be done’
so, a recognition that the parties are going to go through with this particular
contract.
Tunde (buyer) = becomes equitable owner from date of contract as
Kevin (seller) is the legal owner until the deed transferring the estate is
executed.

Stage 2
Execution of transfer deed = Legal ownership is transferred

Registered land – when the title is registered at the Land

Registry. the name of the new owner needs to be entered into the register then
you formally become the legal owner of the property.
Unregistered land – when the deed of transfer is executed.

Failure to use correct formalities.

Parker v Taswell (1858): in this case, the parties had intended for the creation of a
lease.
Under the Old rules to make sure it was executed by deed, it had to be: signed,
sealed and delivered. Here the document was signed but not sealed. So hadn’t
fulfilled all the formalities. {S.52 WOULD say that if you don’t fulfil all the
requirements the transaction (so the agreement) is void = unenforceable in law.}
Equity looked at the substance of the agreement: it could still go ahead as long as the
parties ensure the agreement is enforced. Court applied the maxim ‘as done which
ought to be done’ as they recognized it is a lease and capable of going ahead and so
it is recognized in equity ( not as a legal lease but as an equitable lease)
Equitable interest is created by contract to transfer or create a legal estate or
interest.
Long-term leases (50 yrs.) take place using stage 1 contract and 2 completion +
transfer.

Here the contract hasn’t fulfilled the requirements about being a deed: what's the
consequence?
IF YOU FAIL TO EXECUTE A DEED IS IT TRAGIC? no
Walsh v Lonsdale (1882) 21 ChD 9
‘The tenant holds under an agreement for a lease (a contract). He holds, therefore,
under the same terms in equity as if a lease had been granted, it being a case in
which both parties admit that relief is capable of being given by specific
performance’.
IT IS AS THOUGH THE LEASE HAS BEEN GRANTED, CREATED AND EXECUTED USING
THE DEED. ACCORDING TO THE CASE YOU HAVE TO LOOK TO SEE IF
RELIEF/EQUITABLE REMEDY IS AVAILABLE, LIKE SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.
IF IT IS THE LEASE WILL BE TREATED AS BEING GRANTED BUT WILL ONLY BE
RECOGNISED IN EQUITY.

Remedies are discretionary. it is not automatic.

Coatsworth v Johnson [1886-90] All ER Rep
here Johnson entered into an agreement for a 21 yrs lease. One of the terms was:
within that lease, he used to look after the firm in a good and husband-like manner.
he was in possession of the farm but didn’t look after in properly: he was in breach of
the lease. He got evicted, he argued he couldn’t be evicted as he had an equitable
lease.
Maxim: He who comes to equity must come with clean hands
Courts argued he does not have an equitable lease because he was in
breach of a condition.
don’t just assume there is an equitable equivalent. = Look at the
substance of the agreement

A contract to create or transfer a legal property right can create an equivalent

equitable interest in land:

Legal estate ~ equitable estate

Legal interest ~ equitable interest

10/10/2023

UNREGISTERED TITLE 

3 Has the property right been protected?

Is it binding? Is it enforceable? Whose rights have priority?

The baseline for the purchaser = is the certainty of

who owns the property. (so actually has the power to sell it)
and which third-party rights will the purchaser be bound by? ( who owns those and
are you subject to them?)
certainty is the evidential proof that the person owes the property.

To prove ownership when the title is not registered what you need is to
look at the title deeds.

TO PROVE TITLES ( DEEDS): the epitome of title; a document which will outline all the
transactions that have taken place over time. (with that comes a cross-reference to
the documentation that the buyer can actually examine)
the bundle of titles include: conveyances ( transfer of ownership) , legal mortgages,
grants of probate to executors, grants of letters of administration, assents from
personal representatives.

(this relates as the land has not been put unto the register)

*The purchaser (and their solicitor) would need to EXAMINE/INSPECT that epitome
of title.
how far back in time should you go when looking to make sure the title deeds
correspond with the Epitome of title?

(The good) Root of title- look at the most recent conveyance which is at least 15
years old (s23 LPA 1969)
title deeds= so here ELLA needs to look at the conveyed of 1988 as it is the most
recent one.
Is it enforceable? whose property rights bind who?
*LEGAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, BIND EVERYONE. whether known or unknown.

Kevin granted a right of way by deed to Bertha to use the pathway that runs across
Tunde’s garden to get to the road so that she can catch the bus into town.

Is Tunde bound?
1 identify the type of third party right?
2 is it capable of being legal?
3 has the right been created using the correct formalities?
4 classify the right as either legal or equitable.
5 is it enforceable against Tunde?

1 easement = right to cross land.

2 yes, it is, s.1(2) part a.
3 yes, the word deed has been used. (been granted by deed, s.52).
4 legal easements (due to the reasonings above)
5 Yes, it is, because legal so it binds everyone, and all the formalities are fulfilled.

equitable interest: it binds everyone except a bona fide purchaser to the value of a
legal estate (whose) without notice.
DOCTRINE OF NOTICE

(so as long as the purchaser fulfils all the requirements of the doctrine of notice, they
are in effect immune from any pre-existing equitable interests)
immune = not bound by those pre-existing equitable interests.
BONA FIDE good faith. genuine honest.
purchaser for value buyer, tenant, lessee, mortgagee
for value = for money or money’s worth/equivalent.
(consideration, so for e.g. not for a gift received in inheritance, in that case, they be
bound by the pre-existing equitable interests attached to the land).
of a legal estate (only 2: 1- fee simple absolute in possession = owns an estate in
land/property. 2- terms of years absolute = lease) (legal = created or transferred by
deed, so that excludes an equitable estate). (so if equitable the purchaser is bound
by the pre-existing interest)
without notice of the equitable right = 3 types of notice: actual, constructive,
imputed.

actual notice: it has to come from a credible/reputable source. = documented

source/ written agreement of something being created by deed.
LLOYD V BANKS
BARNHART V GREENS HIELDS

constructive notice: IS about what the purchaser should/ought to know about/

found out about the property. make all the necessary enquiries about the property.
so that you know what you are BOUND to (legal or equitable property rights). so, it is
in your interest to do the appropriate research.
if no research is done by the buyer/ DON’T ASK, yo u are bound by the pre-existing
interests in relation to that property = fixed with constructive notice
“Would have come to his knowledge if such inquiries and inspections had been made
as ought reasonably to have been made by him” S.199(1)(ii)(a) LPA 1925

inspections= those are conducted to find all the information needed (what
property rights are involved):

inspects/look at the land: look out for the conditions of the land/house, looking
for third-party rights. evidence of covered drains/traps etc. do you like caravans? do
you have space for that? and can you use it? could have a restricting covenant.
‘If a purchaser or mortgagee has notice that the vendor or mortgagor is not in possession of the property, he must make
enquiries of the person in possession - of the tenant who is in possession – and find out from him what his rights are, and, if he
does not choose to do that, then whatever title he acquires as purchaser or mortgagee will be subject to the title or right of the
tenant in possession.’
per Vaughan Williams LJ, Hunt v Luck [1902]
in Hunt v Luck there was a tenant inside the property

in other cases, there was a trust unasked:

WILLIAMS & GLYN’S BANK V BOLAND (1981) = The wife had a “hidden” interest the
bank didn’t know about. when it comes to inspections you ASK EVERYONE what
interest they have.

and KINGSNORTH TRUST LTD V TIZARD (1986) = dispute about a wife who sometimes
lived in the house. TO READ EXERCISE IN THE FILES- WHAT IS A REASONABLE
INSPECTION?

inspect vendor’s title documents and what the documents actually say.
Look at the title deeds. title deeds for proof of ownership and also if there
are any legal property rights. Root of title- most recent conveyance which is at
least 15 years old (s23 LPA 1969)

Imputed notice Purchaser is deemed to have knowledge of all the information that
their solicitor or agent has in their possession in relation to the land transaction.
so
if you employ a solicitor, anything they discover is imputed to you. you will
automatically know about it. you are treated as knowing about it.
(reasonably aware of)

position post-1926:
Statutory formulation of doctrine of notice s199 LPA 1925
The doctrine of notice applies to:
* Equitable interests created pre-1926.
* Beneficial interests under a trust

1925 LEGISLATION
retain rule- legal rights bind everyone.
Land Charges Act 1925 (repealed)
Land Charges Act 1972 – current
Land Charges Register – held at Central Land Charges Department in Plymouth

of equitable interest? take to a register so it can be checked what is attached to the

land. now the current legislation is Land Charges 1972.
this provides protection for the purchaser's
way of classifying = s.2 land charges.

12/10/2023 started late

1996 statutory right of occupation. so, a wife can stay in the house.
title deeds are proof of ownership, so they are kept safe.

so, although the name was incorrect version it can still be valid. but the right name
must be used.
Alleyne= always try to get the name correct.

if not registered it is void.

Midland bank v green =

he is still bound for the previous land charges system, hidden lard charge.
he would still be bound by it despite doing research/15-year rule.

16/10/2023

registered titles: the objective is to ensure all land is registered across England and
Wales (1925 Act).

1 creation of the land registry

2 ensuring transactability of land.
3 constructive notice?

New Act 2002, (came into force in 2003): trying to ensure more titles go into the
registry.
compulsory registration of title.
moving from unregistered to registered involved dealing in land (like a sale), which
would trigger registrations.
regardless there are still 12% unregistered land. Some have never been sold,
including national parks, and historical buildings like old castles, hospitals, and
universities.

National register: prove ownership and legal title.

land is owned by the state, what is actually owned is an estate in land.

3 principles involved in the creation of registered land.

1 mirror: register is a clear reflection: should bring certainty and ensure transparency
to those interested in buying the land. reflects exactly what is associated with the
property.
Crack in the mirror: doesn’t give a complete reliable reflection. there are a small
number of interests in land which does not apply on that register. they are
unregistered interests which override. (overriding interests).
these interests are still capable of binding the register.
resulting trust, when contributing to the price towards the purchase. = might not be
aware of the overriding interests. ( not everyone is aware of the result of these
contributions)

2 Beneficial interests: (curtain). Sometimes a private agreement is wished to be kept

secret???
BI make it easier to know who you are dealing with.
the details of the trust are hidden behind the curtain.
legal ownership and equitable ownership are clearly distinct.

3 insurance: compensation.

File plan: where the property is on a map.

the red line shows the boundary.

Property Register:
describes the land and the estate comprised in the title.
1 freehold and postal address
2 easement

Proprietorship Register.
1 restriction (point 3) might involve equitable co-owners. ( they can stop the selling
of property as their permission might be also required.)

Charges Register=
1 The burdens: what limits its use and enjoyment of the land. (covenants)
not allowed to cause any nuisance etc.
that has an impact on the free “will” he will have once he buys the property. so he’s
not permitted to do certain things: so this might stop him from buying.

Range of interests:
1 substantive registration:

registrable dispositions: interests which must be registered to take effect in law! if

not it will only be recognised in equity.

overriding interests are only found when inspections are made.

17/10/2023

S4 LRA 2002 sets out the triggering events for first registration:
1 You need to have a qualifying estate = you have to transfer the info to the land
registry
triggering events to first registration:
*a sale
*a gift
*court order
* assent
all these will lead to a transfer.

*Grant of a lease of more than 7 years must be registered, only the lease needs to be
registered.

*reversionary lease a future lease (possession not until next year even if signed
months on before etc.)
* First legal mortgage of the qualifying estate.

Voluntary registration

incentive, fee reduction for it to go on the register.

S3 LRA 2002
qualifying estate owners can apply for voluntary registration at any time.

Who registers the estate?

the responsible estate owner. (s6(1) LRA 2002)
The transferee / or the borrower (mortgage) needs to register

time period?
within 2 months of the triggering event. the triggering event is the transfer, so when
the property was bought. s6(4) LRA 2002

Non-compliance?
1 if the requirements for the registration are not fulfilled with, the
transfer/grant/creation becomes VOID.it cannot operate at law = no legal effect
2(a) the title to the legal estate reverts to the transferor who holds it on a bare trust
for the transferee.
S7 LRA 2002
in that case, only an equitable estate will be held. = however the possibility of
registration is still available if there is a good reason to do so.

GRADES OF TITLE- FREEHOLDS

how sound is that title?
-absolute title = the tile is sound, the most reliable form of tile. satisfied that no one
else is going to have a claim on title. ( easy to buy and sell, nothing can stop any
potential sell)
applies to both freehold and leasehold titles
registered estate is subject to:
entries in the register, and interests which override the register.

-possessory title = no formal documentation to prove you own the plot of

land/estate.
the title owner only has possession of the estate: they may have lost the deeds or
acquired ownership through adverse possession.

-qualified title = there is a defect with the title. there is a specific defect in the title
which has been identified by the registrar.

GRADES OF TITLE – LEASEHOLD

-absolute = good leasehold

effect of first registration?

S11 LRA 2002

*The owner of the estate will have the benefit of interest connected to that estate.
they will be subjected to any interest provided, on the register and also those not
provided on the register: overriding.

CONCLUSIVENESS OF THE REGISTER

if, on the entry of a person in the register as the proprietor of a legal estate... it shall
be deemed to be vested in him as a result of the registration.
acquired that legal estate as a RESUL of the registration.
S58 LRA 2002

OWNER’S POWERS:

ss23-26 LRA2002

registered proprietor

sale, lease, gift, mortgage charge

“Permanent rules’ on registration:

s27:
transfer of estate= legal owner once the name has been changed on the registry
legal lease more than 7 yrs=

24/10/2023
Overriding interests
helps to protect interests.
occupation of the property must be fulfilled.

Interest (held by occupier) + ACTUAL OCCUPATION and no inquiry = OI

it is the property right that overrides the property.

propriety right = capable of binding third parties.

Statutory right of occupation, protect.

Actual Occupation: the overriding interest can only be defeated if the purchaser finds
out or not.
timing of actual occupation = in occupation at the time of disposition. ABBEY
NATIONAL

Actual occupation is = physical presence on the land.

It's factual, is someone there?
factual approach is still relevant. Thompson v Foy
It does not necessarily involve the personal presence of the person claiming to
occupy. A caretaker or the representative of a company can occupy on behalf of his
employer.

it is objective and subjective at the same time: the intentions and wishes of the
occupier are also considered.

Link Lending v Bustard

Mummery LJ tried to provide all the relevant factors/issues: degree of permanence
and continuity, absence length and reasonings and the nature of the property and
personal circumstances.

does the lack of physical presence defeat the idea of being in actual occupation?
depends on circumstances.
Chhokar v Chhokar husband sells the property while she is in the hospital giving birth.
She comes back and the door is locked. THE WIFE WAS IN ACTUAL OCCUPATION.

Link Lending v Bustard. psychiatric issues, so Bustard was in a residential care home.
she would visit the house and tell her therapist she would like to go home.
Mrs Hussain wanted to mortgage the house; it was granted.
didn’t make any M payment.
What is B’s interest? and is she an actual occupier?
what was her position? at the time of the transfer, she had been involuntarily
detained at the hospital. she always INTENDED to go home/did visit.
looking at her intentions and wishes, it was recognised she was
vulnerable/sanctioned. She was recognised as being an actual Occupier, a very
sympathetic approach.

Stockholm Finance v Garden Holdings : the princess wasn’t in the house for 14
months; her belongings were there and she had someone go in to clean it often. Her
presence was fleeting. So, she was not an actual OCCUPIER.

Rosset: here there was actual occupation. as it is not limited to residential properties.

Malory Enterprises v Cheshire Homes the claimants used the land as storage ( outing
up fences) “The evidence of activity on the site clearly indicated that someone
claimed to be entitled to be on it.”

Chaudhary v Yavuz: can an easement be occupied? You're just walking through and
from the land. OCCUPATION must be, or be referable to, personal physical activity by
some one or more individuals. WALKING UP AND DOWN THE STAIRS is NOT
OCCUPATION. just exercising an easement is not an occupation.

Thompson V Foy can actual occupation end between the time of actual disposition
and the date of registration? if they decide they don’t want to live there any longer,
the mindset is enough to negate actual occupation.

INQUIRY:
find the obligations on the holder of the rights and on the purchaser.
Exception para 2(b)
an interest of a person of whom inquiry was made before the disposition and who
failed to disclose the right when he could reasonably have been expected to do so;
Begum v Issa

duty to tell the purchaser they have any particular rights = DUTY OF DISCLOSURE.
normally it is reasonable to do so.
In Begum, the purchaser asked the lady if she had an interest in the house, during a
family celebration, was it appropriate to ask that during celebrations? NO

Exception para 2(c)(i)

the purchaser must be aware of any interests.
the right holder must be careful, their occupation was actually???

it should be obvious during an inspection. Thomas v Clydesdale Bank

visible signs of occupation and the circumstances of how long the person has been
there if the occupation is unclear.

WILLIAMS: the lender for the mortgage did not go check the house, he didn’t keep
the payment, so they want the house as agreed. Mrs. Bolance had an interest, and it
was binding over the bank.

overrwaching and overriding are different concepts.

if the interest has been overwatching, they won’t be subjected to overriding.

26/10/2023
Co-ownership:
there are different types of co-ownerships:

Joint tenancy (JT) and tenancy in common (T in c)

1. two or more parties join in owning land. they are one unit in law. JT.
only exist as JT in law
but in equity, it can be both JT and T in c.
*Creation of a trust is co-ownership of land = legal owners who own a trust together.
*Survivorship principle – JT
*Severance of an equitable JT only.
JT
“Each entitled to the whole”, they are regarded as a single entity.
Murray v Hall.
They each own 100% of the equitable interest.
no share, each owning the whole amount.

SURVIVORSHIP - on the death of a JT.

on the death of C (ABC), AB becomes the sole legal owner. that is done by operation
of law.
and C won't be able to leave a “share by will” as he doesn’t own anything by himself
but as a whole. so, it prevents third parties from having a claim over the property.
commorientes rule = oldest is deemed to die first.
four unities:
*They are required for a JT to exist.
*Unless all four are present, this would be a Tenancy in common.

1 Possession – JT possess each part of the land; they own the entire land.
2 Interest – JT wholly entitled to the whole,
3 Title- JT derive the title from the same act (document= deed)
4 Time- interest vests in JT at the same time.

Goodman v Gallant = In Goodman v Gallant a statement in the deed that parties own
as beneficial JT was conclusive – irrespective of uneven contributions to the purchase
price
if you choose to refer to yourself as JT at the time of purchase, this is conclusive.
You have to express in the deed when you are a JT in land and ALSO a T in C in equity.
a JT can arise in this case, even if the parties didn’t wish for it. THE INTENTIONS of
the parties is what the court will look at, not the contributions.

Tenancy in Common
differs from JT in 3 ways:
1 Each tenant owns a DISTINCT share, based on the size of the contribution to the
purchase price.
2 no right of survivorship.
3 the deed uses words of severance.

This tends to be more appropriate with business investments. (The choice between
the 2 is up to the tenants.)

FEATURES
1 NO 4 units- only unity of possession.
2 each owns a share in equity, at law each is still entitled to all of the property (no
severance at law)
3 the share reflects their equitable interest but at law, they own ONE title.
4 no requirement that the purchase is shared at the same time or under the same
document.

(something something overreaching!)

what is a trust of Land?

all forms of co-ownership in land involve the creation of a trust of land.
legal title can only be held as JT at law s.1 (6) LPA 1925.
no severance of legal JT S.36 (2) LPA 1925.
equitable ownership: depends on JT or T in C.

31/10/2023

acquisition of a beneficial interest: it is needed to provide equitable ownership of the

property: it grants “control” over the property.

with registered land: 1- registers a restriction to protect a beneficial interest and 2-

overriding interest.

with unregistered land:

protection by the doctrine of notice
beneficial interest here arises from a financial investment. examples include:
mortgage payments and contribution to the purchase price.
*a question now is, can other types of contributions (non-financial) lead to the
acquisition of an interest in land?

how can a person acquire a beneficial interest?

Bull v Bull and Eves v Eves

*this can be done through the contribution of physical work on the house.
– Eves v Eves, she wasn’t a legal owner as he was the sole legal owner (despite him
telling her she couldn’t be due to being too young), the courts decided she should be
entitled to a 1/3 share as she physically contributed to maintaining the property.
(renovations)

-Burns v Burns THE WOMAN IN THE RELATIONSHIP WAS GIVEN MONEY TO MANTAIN
THE HOUSE and carry out work. the equitable interest could have only, and can only
arise if there is a financial contribution to the property.
Rosset- she carried out work on the property and renovated it. she claimed a large
share in the property.
This property was only owned by the sole legal owner MR. At no point did they come
to an agreement of her owning a part before the purchase.
only a direct financial contribution to the acquisition price will be acceptable for a
beneficial interest. there’s a focus on property rights rather than equity (restrictive
approach)

Stock v Dowden and Jones v Kernott indicate a shift in judicial thinking on the
question of contributions made after the purchase when the property is jointly
owned by two or more persons.

JVK
a purchase made in JOINT NAME for a joint occupation ( by a married or unmarried
couple) the presumption is that the parties intended a joint tenancy both in law and
in equity.

S V D acknowledges that Rosset? . where the property is solely owned, beneficial

interest doesn’t count.?????

1 1996 act updates provisions: it updates LPA.

1996- regulates the rights of both trustees and beneficiaries.

02/11/2023

CO-OWNERSHIP (3)

what is the significance of joint tenancy in equity?

SEVERANCE: how both statute and case law provide for the ending of joint tenancy in
equity.
separating a share of joint tenancy so that co-ownership continues.
principle of survivorship.

s.36 (2) you cannot severe an equitable JT. ONLY THE LEGAL estate is severed.
No severance by will – as it must be done when alive, and immediate. Must be
communicated to other joint tenants.

s.36 (2) LPA 1925 – only sever an equitable JT

once they severe in equity they are tenants in common with a common share of 50%.
( case of Goodman v Gallant).

The JT in law continues.

GVG you can rebut the presumption, but in the absence of that, they’ll follow with
the intentions as written down.
the supreme court case confirms that GVG is the rights approach.
INTENTIONS ARE NOT second-guessed

How does severance actually take place?

statutory method s.36 (2)
it creates the clearest method of severance as it can occur by written notice.
unilateral (the JT that wishes to severance does not need the consent of others ) he
must WRITE to all the other tenants that they are selling. This means that it is not
sufficient to write to one tenant if there are 5, direct communication between
tenants is needed.

Re 88 Berkeley Road NW 9- proof of posting as she posted this through registered

post. registered post was sufficient for delivery even if recipient did not receive the
letter
Kinch v Bullard – A notice sent by one JT to the other arrived at the receiver’s
address. He never saw it due to a heart attack and notice was destroyed by the
sender to benefit from survivorship. DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN DELIVERED.

A severance written notice on ABC

A severs and has 1/3 share. B and C continue as JT of remaining interest ( SO WOULD
BE OF 200K IF THE INITIAL AMOUNT WAS 300K) (i.e. JT of a smaller interest)
A will no longer be bound by survivorship.

how should written notice be communicated? there’s no specific way.

They have to make it clear they are severing, and it has to be communicated.

Re Drapers conveyance - An application made to the court under s.30 LPA 1925 (s.14
TLA 96) requesting the sale and division of the proceeds of the sale was sufficient

Harris v. Goddard – Application for ancillary relief on divorce under s.24 MCA 1973.
The question before the court was whether the s.24 application was severance.
Court of Appeal answered ‘no’. ancillary relief only relates to the divorce, and not
immediate, so it wasn’t immediately apparent how this would have been resolved.

Neocleous v Rees (2019) – an email counts as writing when required by statute – but
this case does not directly deal with severance. Judgment would reflect modern-day
practice. When required by statute that something it is done in writing, it is sufficient
for it to be done by email.

written notice is a specific requirement to be fulfilled.

You need to be aware that section 36-2 needs to be satisfied. most ppl don’t know
this. this has caused to develop, in parallel, a severance at common law.
severance is also not always appropriate and it is often informal and arises from
behaviour rather than direct communication. it has to be proved that in the absence
of it being written down, severance has occurred.

Williams v Hensman = agreements between tenants (mutuality) on how to carry out

severance.
Act of a Joint Tenant operating on one’s own share
Severance by Mutual Agreement
Severance by Course of Dealings (Mutual Conduct)

we look at how the parties behaved: individual behaviour which is replicated which
allows us to conclude severance has occurred.
it is about what the parties have not done which leads the court to believe that
severance by conduct has taken place.

xyz are JT both in law and equity ( left)

(right) so here XYZ remain JT in law but in equity
but in equity P has become a beneficial owner he has 1/3 share.

an act of disposition would also require a fraudulent act of disposition.

First National Securities v. Hegerty : his share will be responsible for making good any
share. ( any financial liability would attach to his shares)

Bankrupcy:
trustee in bankruptcy would be the one to help.
Non-bankrupt co-owner retains their share
consequence being = severance.
Williams v. Hensman (1861
‘Secondly, a joint tenancy may be severed by mutual agreement…’
Mutual agreement amongst all tenants severs the JT in equity
Agreement not needed in writing – simply an agreement that the Joint Tenancy is to
be ended

Courts will look for the requirement of mutuality:

Burgess v Rawnsley – oral contract = severance occurred

e.g. two joint tenants agree to sell the property/. buy out other shares. either way
there is an agreement to severe.

Gore & Snell v. Carpenter – terminated negotiations – held no severance. they don’t
agree, but is the process of negotiation severing something else?

Davis v Smith (2011) – agreement by the separating couple to put their house on the
market and share proceeds was not of itself sufficient to sever.
However, other evidence allowed the court to conclude that there was a mutual
agreement and that survivorship ended – e.g. the solicitor’s correspondence advised
parties to split the proceeds of the sale.

*the agreement HAS TO BE EVIDENT. = proof of a genuine agreement.

identify the point to come to the decision.

Examples of mutual conduct (both behaving the same ways)

Physical partition of the land excluding the other co-owner ( behaviour)

Writing of mutual wills
Negotiations for disposal of the property – see Burgess v Rawnsley below

Key issue is to demonstrate a genuine agreement

Mutual conduct ( behaviour of the parties) is different from mutual agreement

( meeting of minds)

Cf with Pennycuick LJ:

Needs to be COMMON INTENTION rather being than a binding agreement is
necessary for severance by a course of dealing