David and Eva are to pay?? For the purpose of deciding whether David and Eva were given exclusive possession of the flat it could be argued on the basis of the decision in Antoniades v Villiers. In this case their Lordship held that the attempt to make the agreement look like two separated licence was in fact a joint tenancy.
Nonetheless, Eva vacating the property renders her agreement with Alf void therefore she no longer holds any proprietary interest in the property. Fiona hence needs to prove she has a proprietary interest instead of a personal right. The burden is on Fiona to prove that she satisfies all three requirements for a lease. Firstly she would need to prove she has exclusive possession of the flat and has the ability to exclude all others from the flat including Alf.
Looking at it from face value it can be argued from the facts given that Alf by retaining a key and having entered into the flat a few times does not give Fiona exclusive possession. Howerever, the decision in Aslan v Murphy  suggest otherwise, it was held that by the landlord keeping a key to the property that by itself did not prevent a lease.
Fiona can argue that due to the flat being unfinished Alf did reserve the right to enter the premises during reasonable hours as his intention was to supervise the workmen to allow repairs.
The second criterion that needs to be met is the length of term of the lease; it should be noted that, a lease will fail without certainty of term.
Fiona must prove that her lease was for a fixed or periodic term? If her lease did not exceed three years then it would be legal without formalities provided that section 5 2 LPA is satisfied. Section 54 2 LPA states that the tenant must be given immediate right of possession, at the market rent with no fine. As we have not been given any indication as to how long she plans on staying at the flat, for this purpose we shall assume that there was an uncertainty in the term.
One would wisely take the view by invoking periodic tenancy when it appears uncertainty of term. As confirmed by Prudential Assurance v London Residuary Body it was stated that the beginning and the end of the term must be ascertainable at the outset. However by looking at the authority in Lace v. Fiona was given the consent to occupy the flat at the will of Alf who may have terminated it at any time. She was allowed possession and paid rent at regular intervals. Bella, Charles and David have only a mere permission and thus, George as the lawful owner of the land would have the right to revoke the licence at any time under common law.
In regards to Fiona, George could challenge her tenancy based on the judgement in Heslop v Burns by claiming that Alf had no intention to create legal relation, as both Fiona and Alf were related. Either Alf or Fiona could have terminated it at any time for any reason, or for no reason at all. Alf having transferred his interest in the property to George the agreement is broken therefore George should be able to obtain vacant possession of the flats.
Scenario 2 raised the question on the enforceability of the parties to the covenant. A covenant is a promise contained in a deed as stated in section 52 1 of the Law of Property Act which is made by one party for the benefit of another. Any future covenantee of the land must therefore abide by the terms. In this scenario we shall focus on the law applicable to the enforcement of covenants on freehold land and covenants in leases. Leonard sells 50 acres to Mary and acres to Ned with a covenant.
Ned then sells his land and Mary leases her land. For this purpose we shall look at the relevant case laws in this area alongside the Law of Property Act , the Land Registration Act and the Landlord and Tenant covenants Act Having examined the positions held by each of them we shall conclude with an advice for Sarah as to the enforceability of the covenants. Therefore the land owned by Ned is subject to the burdened of the covenant. As there was no indication of such a guarantee between Ned and Philip it can be argued that the original covenantor Ned is liable for any breaches of his successors in title Philip.
Under common law rules section 79 1 LPA provides that it is the intention of a covenant in common law that the benefit of a covenant is passed on to the successor of the land, so as to give them the right to enforce a promise by a promisor on that land. To enforce the benefit at common law Sarah will have to satisfy certain conditions to show that the benefit of the covenant has passed to her and she can sue Ned for breach of them. Firstly, the covenant must touch and concern the land according to the principle in Rogers v Hosegood.
This means that the covenant must relate to the use or value of the land in the terms of a proprietary obligation. Secondly, the covenant must be restrictive or negative in nature which in this case it is. Thirdly, the successor in the title Sarah must have also acquired a legal estate in the land; which she has through inheritance. The next requirement is that the burden of the restrictive covenant must be intended to run with the land. This obligation is fulfilled by evidence which establishes that the burden was meant to be proprietary instead of personal.
As a result the burden is annexed to the land in order that the burden may run. Philip is not the original covenantor but instead a respective successor. Philip is running yoga and healing centre on the land which goes against the covenant between Leonard and Ned. To be able to ascertain whether the burden has passed to Philip, we shall rely on the rules of equity. First the covenant must be a negative one according to the principle laid down in Haywood v Brunswick Permanent Benefit Building society.
The unscrupulous people who occupied property without the authority of the registered proprietors with an aim of later claiming the ownership can never find it easy at the moment. In the LRA , adverse possession gave the claimants a stronger argument compared to the rightful proprietors of the estates.
This law gave the occupants automatic ownership without giving the real owners any chance of defending themselves. This caused many agencies and municipal councils to lose a lot of land property in courts. It was a loose law that was prone to abuse; however, it was eventually rectified by the enactment of the LRA The Law Registration Act was also able to immensely reduce the overriding interests over titles.
Overriding interests are those interests overlapping with both the proprietor who is registered and the person who also acquires an interest in the same property. These interests had previously never been fixed in the registration titles for the properties — something that brought about much confusion in the identification of the title ownership. The fact that the overriding interests were not listed in the title registry also complicated the process of selling or exchanging the ownership of these titles.
The LRA has been able to reduce the existing overriding interests as much as possible. The aim of this Act was to ensure that all of these interests are replaced with the entries within the registered titles themselves. The title registries have been made to be as complete as possible with all the relevant information required by the relevant parties.
To achieve this, a number of things have been put in place. These include the reduction in the overriding interests, urging the parties who are applying for registration to give out all the relevant information concerning the known overriding interests. Recording of these interests in the registry has been of help in clarifying many issues that may bring problems later on.
All those conflicting interests lose their overriding status after being noted in the registry. This remains the status even if the titles are cancelled. Some of these overriding interests have also been abolished altogether.
Overriding interests are normally used in the process of the purchasing. Under the Land Registration Act , some of these interests have been automatically binding to the purchasers. There also exist some minor interests that have been taken into consideration by this new law. These interests are only binding after a corresponding entry have been brought into the registry. Some of these include restrictive covenants, matrimonial rights, equitable leases, and estate contracts. Other concerns are also addressed by the restriction in the registry.
These include constructive trust interests and equitable interest arising from a strict settlement. All these are well elaborated in the third schedule of the second paragraph. As in the case of Malory Enterprises Ltd vs. Cheshire Homes UK Ltd, anybody who buys land with wrongdoing and later seeks to change the title to his or her name is termed to have taken the rights of the rightful owner to seek the rectification.
This was true according to the old law. This new law gives the rightful owner enough ground to sue the culprits without rectification. The new law also changes the major components of the overriding interests in its schedules 1 and 3. This changes the Land Registration Act in section 70 1 on overriding interests. The old Act transferred the rights of the title owner to the wrong person without fair consideration of circumstances. The LRA in section 58 and schedule 4 clearly describes how to tackle forgery in land deals.
The court has the power to overturn any transferal that has been made in a forged manner. This only happens where the registration was initially done. Under the new law, the registry provides reliable bottom-line information.
In the case of Barclays Bank Plc vs. He later transferred this land to another company which was later registered as the proprietor of the land. The company later used this same land as security for loan from the Barclays Bank Plc. Guy later claimed that the transfer was procured through fraud and forgery.
The bank had to confirm the authenticity of Mr. The finding of the court was that section 58 of the Land Registration Act clearrly asserts that registration is conclusive and only subject to its rectification. The company was the registered owner of this land and, therefore, had the authority to transfer it to Barclays Bank. The only way for Mr. Guy to claim this information was to retrieve it from the register. This was a tall order, as he had to prove that the correction was a result of a mistake that had earlier occurred.
The conclusion of the matter suggested that Mr. Guy should have exercised caution transferring his title. Having done this in time could have spared him entering into any disadvantageous contracts with the company. This was one of the distinctive cases that were resolved by the new law. Registration system of land has been a big success, as seen in the cases that have been successfully resolved using the LRA The older law made it difficult for the buyer to know any intermediate beneficiaries of the land.
There was no written law on how to identify such people. The result of this was not pleasant, as problems arose with the buyers. Those who collected rent and other profits have not been given the rights in the new law. This law has not granted the overriding authority to such due to much emphasis on the registration of the titles. The requirement of registering all the existing land estates has been boosted by the availability of cheap proceedings. Landowners can easily register their titles without passing through tedious bureaucratic processes.
These records can easily be accessed on-line using modern technology. This has reduced the time that could have been taken in going to the relevant offices to do the searches on the lands in question.
Those companies with interest in lands for development can now easily get the information about them before proceeding with the purchase. The land registry has been updates all the time from its branch offices. The enactment of the new law has brought about many other benefits. Their categorization into different overriding interests has enabled exemption of short leases 7 years or less from the registration.
The new Act has also lessened the burden of having to register different titles on different names within short periods of time. This would be a tedious job to the different clients who came for the lease. Most importantly, it should be noted that the U. Questionable land cases have reduced drastically, and those that have recently arisen have been resolved very quickly.
This has been due to the availability of the clear guidelines, well elaborated in the Land Registration Act
Land Law Essays. The selection of land law essays below have been submitted to us by students in order to help you with your studies. Please remember to reference barsauz.tk if you wish to cite any of these essays in your own work.
Full research paper www research.. land law essay help I didn't have any words left to write an acknowledgements page in my dissertation but this guy would have been at the top of the list. article du code civil explication essay.
Land Law Essays - Use Our Free Law Essays and Assignments To Help You With Your Law Course. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers. Land Law Assignment Question 1. A mortgage is a conveyance. This free Law essay on Essay: Land law problem question is perfect for Law students to use as an example. There are UK writers just like me on hand, waiting to help you. Each of us is qualified to a high level in our area of expertise, and we can write you a fully researched, fully referenced complete original answer to your essay question.
Land Law Essay The statement ‘Cuiusestsolemeiususque ad coelum ad inferos’ (‘Whose is the soil; his is also that which is up to the sky and down to the depths of the earth’) is inaccurate and gives a misleading indication of the rights of the owner of the fee simple absolute in barsauz.tks. Introduction: Land has [ ]. Hi I am curently studying a degree level of law - subject of this assignment, land law and need pointing in the right direction. In May , John co.