land law waga

Mr Lobb was the managing director of a small petrol station in South Street, Brain-tree, Essex. It had to buy petrol only from Total Oil. In 1969 he was in financial difficulty. Contrary to his solicitor’s advice, he entered into a lease and lease back arrangement with a new tie agreement with Total Oil. This proved costly. Eventually he paid off debts and ten years after sought the agreement to be set aside as being a restraint of trade and unconscionable. Mr Peter Millett QC held that the agreement could not be set aside, and Mr Lobb appealed. Judgment Dillon LJ held it was not a restraint of trade or an unconscionable bargain and even if it had been, it would have been barred by laches anyway.

Esso Petroleum Co Ltd -v- Harpers Garage The defendant ran two garages under solus agreements with the plaintiffs who complained when the defendants began to purchase petrol from cheaper alternative sources. The House was asked whether the solus agreements were be regarded in law as an agreement in restraint of trade. Held: An agreement in restraint of trade is not generally unlawful if the parties choose to abide by it: it is only unenforceable if a party chooses not to abide by it. It was necessary to ascertain the legitimate interests of the landlords which they were entitled to protect and to discover whether those restraints exceeded what was adequate for that purpose. Lord Hodson said: ‘When one remembers that the basis of the doctrine of restraint of trade is the protection of the public interest, it is not difficult to see how the law developed in its conception of reasonableness as the test which must be passed in order to save a contract in restraint of trade from unenfo

Austerberry v Oldham Corpn (1885) 29 ChD 750, CA The rule in this case is known as the Austerberry v. Oldham ("Austerberry"). Many properties are subject to reciprocal rights agreements. These deal with shared access, services and restrictions on property use and are intended to bind future owners of the properties. Real property interests are said to run with the land but positive covenants - promises by one party to another that typically require the expenditure of money, labour or material - do not run with the land, and consequently do not bind subsequent purchasers. This study area has been created by our experts to help students with Land Law Essay and Problem Questions. If you require further help with your question, why not order a fully customised model answer on which to base your assignment? Use our online order form to submit your request and you could have a complete model answer written to your specification within 24 hours. Read more: http://www.law-essa

Facts Mrs Chhokar was in hospital and undergoing child birth with Mr Chhokar’s second child in February 1979, when he sold 60 Clarence Street, Southall to Mr Parmar. It was in his name, but she had given money for its purchase and maintenance. He had already tried to abandon her in October 1978 on a trip to India but she had managed to return on her own, a few weeks after him. The buyer, who knew of the situation, tried to scare her away by smashing the windows and assaulting her. But she stayed put with her two children. Judgement High Court Ewbank J ordered that Mr Parmar held the property on trust for himself and Mrs Chhokar in equal shares, and that it be sold in 9 months. Till then, she should pay him a rent of £8 a week. She appealed, arguing she should stay rent free until a sale. Court of Appeal The Court of Appeal held the purpose of the trust was to give Mrs Chhokar and her children a home. There was no reason for an order for sale, having regard to the interest o

Walsh v Lonsdale The Plaintiff [Walsh] entered an agreement to lease a property off the Defendant [Lonsdale]. The agreement was made, but there was no actual formal lease (ie, a deed), which means it is not a legal lease. The Plaintiff was behind on his rent and the Defendant tried to use his right to 'distress' (right of a landlord to take tenant's chattels if behind on rent). The Plaintiff is trying to get an injunction against the distress. Argument The Plaintiff argues that the lease was not properly signed and therefore the landlord does not have the right to distress. Judgment Equitable Leases An equitable lease arises where there is an agreement to lease in writing which does not abide by formal requirements (ie, not a deed). An equitable lease, where the court would grant specific performance on the agreement, should be respected as if it a legal lease. The lessee acquires an equitable interest in the property, and accordingly, the lessor acquires

Wheeldon v Burrows Easements; implied easements Wheeldon v Burrows (1879) LR 12 Ch D 31 is an English property law case on the implying of grant easements. The case established one of the three current methods by which an easement can be acquired by implied grant, and has effectively been put into statutory force by Section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925 of England. Facts Mr Allen owned a piece of land and a workshop in Derby, which had windows overlooking and receiving light from the first piece of land. He sold the workshop to Mr Wheeldon, and the piece of land to Mr Burrows. Mr Burrows built on the property, and it obstructed light into the workshop, which had only skylights. Judgement Thesiger LJ held that because the seller had not reserved the right of access of light to the windows, no such right passed to the purchaser of the workshop. So the buyer of the land could obstruct the workshop windows with building. He said the following.[1] “ We have had a considerable

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