land law waga

Facts Mr Michael Boland and Mrs Julia Sheila Boland lived on Ridge Park, Beddington, Surrey. Mr Boland, registered owner of the house, borrowed money from the bank for his building company, Epsom Contractors Ltd. Mr Boland failed to repay, and the bank sought possession. Mrs Boland argued that because she made substantial financial contributions to acquiring the home, she should be able to stay. The bank argued it did not qualify as a property right, basing its argument on the doctrine of conversion, and she should only get a share of any money made by her husband from the land, not a right enabling her to use it. Second, even if there was a property right, the bank’s defence was it registered its charge, and Mrs Boland’s right was not registered. The lack of registration defence does not work if the party claiming the unregistered right is in actual occupation. Then, that person has an overriding interest. But the bank argued that if she cohabited with her husband, she should not co

Abbey National Building Society v Cann Facts George Cann lived with his mother, Daisy, in Island Road, Mitcham. She had contributed to the purchase price, and so George held the house on trust for himself and her, even though it was solely registered in her name. They moved to a smaller house that cost £4000 more in South Lodge Avenue. To buy it they used the proceeds of selling the Island Road home and got a mortgage from the Abbey National. Daisy knew this was necessary. She did not know that George had also taken another mortgage for £25,000. Later he could not repay and Abbey National wished to repossess the property. Daisy, whose new partner was also living there, argued that she had a right to remain in the home, because her equitable proprietary right arose before Abbey National, and this coupled with her actual occupation gave her an overriding interest under LRA 1925 section 70(1)(g) (now LRA 2002 Sch 3). She had started to move in carpets 35 minutes before the charge was

Stack v Dowden [2007] Mr Stack appealed against an order specifying the division of the net proceeds of sale of the home he had shared with his former partner (Ms Dowden) and their children. Ms Dowden and Mr Stack had purchased the house in their joint names using the then current land registry form, which contained no declaration of trust but contained a declaration that the survivor could give a good receipt for capital money arising from a disposition of the property. The purchase was funded by the sale of their previous property, which had been in Ms Dowden's sole name, plus savings in Ms Dowden's name, and a mortgage held in both names. Mr Stack paid the mortgage interest and endowment policy premiums, while together they paid off the capital, with Ms Dowden contributing a greater proportion. When they bought the house, Ms Dowden and Mr Stack had been cohabiting for 18 years and had four children. Nearly all aspects of their respective finances had been kept separate.

Dyer v Dyer [1788] EWHC Exch J8, (1788) 2 Cox Eq Cas 92 is an English trusts law case which held that where property is purchased by one person in the name of another there is the presumption of a resulting trust. Facts A person provided money to purchase a legal estate in land in the name of another person, and there was no evidence that the purchaser intended to advance a loan or make a gift. It was therefore assumed that the legal title holder holds the property on resulting trust for the person who provided the funds. Judgment Eyre CB stated "the trust of a legal estate, whether freehold, copyhold, or leasehold; whether taken in the names of the purchasers and other jointly, or in the names of others without that of the purchaser; whether in the one name or several; whether jointly or successive - results to the man who advances the purchase-money".

Third parties are not bound by a licence Third parties (such as purchasers or tenants) are not bound by a licence agreement. In King v David Allen and Sons, Billposting, Limited ([1916] 2 AC 54, HL) King owned land and granted David Allen and Sons a contractual licence to put posters and advertisements on the side wall of a cinema that was to be built on the land. King granted a lease of the cinema to a third party who refused to honour the licence. It was held that the tenant of the cinema was not bound by the licence as it was a purely personal agreement and did not create any estate or interest in land. King was liable to David Allen and Sons in damages for breach of the licence. The lease did not mention the licence but it would presumably have made no difference had it done so. Lord Buckmaster rejected the idea that the agreement between King and David Allen and Sons could be a lease even though there was exclusivity and an agreed term. He held that this type of arrangement w

Facts Ellenborough Park is a large area of parkland in Weston-super-Mare. The land was owned in 1855 by two tenants in common, who sold off parts of the land for the building of houses, and granted rights to the owners of the houses to enjoy the parkland which remained. The land was enjoyed for some time to come, until 1955, when Judge Danckwerts delivered his decision on the case which arose. Part of the problem arose out of the fact that the War Office had taken possession of the land during World War II, and compensation was due to be paid to the owners of the properties built on land surrounding the land which had been occupied during the war. Beneficiaries of the trust of the original owners of the land challenged this, stating that the property owners had only a personal advantage (a licence, with no proprietary rights), and not an easement proper (which would include proprietary rights). Judgement Evershed MR determined the following criteria for defining an easement, whi

Dick brought a free hold factory building together with adjoining land before six months from Tom.The property was correctly registered at HM land registery with absolute title.After the purchase the following problem arises.(a)Trace money Ltd claims that it has a legal mortgage over the land granted by Tom 3 years ago.It says that as installments are now considerably in arear it wishes to inforce a security.(b)Elena has produced a letter which signed by both Elena and Tom which Tom agreed to allow her graze goat on the land.(c)Ryhan who owns adjoining land has produced an old deed which prohibits any industrial activities taking place on Dick"s land.(d)Tanna claims that Tom allowed her to sit on the land to paint and she hopes that Dick will continue to do so. Ans.There are three points to be focused here(1)Dick holds the freehold(2)The land is registered so we must apply the land registeration rules applicable on a subsequent regiseration(3)It is registered with the title abso