land law waga

Constructive Trust - Constructive trust is an equitable remedy resembling a trust imposed by a court to benefit a party that has been wrongfully deprived of its rights due to either a person obtaining or holding legal right to property which they should not possess due to unjust enrichment or interference. Events generating constructive trusts In a constructive trust the defendant breaches a duty owed to the plaintiff. The most common such breach is a breach of fiduciary duty. A controversial example is the case of Attorney-General for Hong Kong v Reid,[3] in which a senior prosecutor took bribes not to prosecute certain offenders. With the bribe money, he purchased property in New Zealand. His employer, the Attorney-General, sought a declaration that the property was held on constructive trust for it, on the basis of breach of fiduciary duty. The Privy Council awarded a constructive trust. The case is different from Regal (Hastings) because there was no interference with a profi

 Estate in land ( Interest- right, claim, or legal share: an interest in the new company) An estate in land is an interest in real property . Categories of estates Estates in land can be divided into four basic categories: Freehold estates : rights of conveyable exclusive possession and use, having immobility and indeterminate duration fee simple (fee simple absolute)—most rights, least limitations, indefeasible Fee Simple Determinable Fee Simple Subject to a Condition Subsequent Fee Simple Subject to Executory Limitation defeasible estate —voidable possession and use finite estate—limited to lifetimes life estate —fragmented possession and use for duration of someone's life fee tail —inalienable rights of inheritance for duration of family line 2. ( Leasehold estates) estates : rights of possession and use but not ownership . The lessor (owner/ landlord ) gives this right to the lessee ( tenant ).

In Abbey National Building Society v Cann, House of Lords clarified about what amounts to ‘actual occupation' and on what date a person must be in ‘actual occupation' to have an overriding interest under s. 70(1)(g) binding upon a purchaser/ mortgagee. Was it the date of completion of the sale or mortgage, or was it the (inevitably later) date of registration? Their Lordships held in favour of the ‘date of completion' of the sale or mortgage. Lord Oliver, who delivered the only reasoned speech in Abbey National v Cann, elaborated on the issue of what constitutes ‘actual occupation': It is, perhaps, dangerous to suggest any test for what is essentially a question of fact; occupation is a concept which may have different connotations according to the nature and purpose of the property which is claimed to be occupied. It does not necessarily, I think, involve the personal presence of the person claiming to occupy. A caretaker or the representative of a company can occ

The husband and wife had the freehold of a matrimonial home which was in the husband's name (the land being unregistered). The wife had an equitable interest by virtue of her contributions to the deposit and the mortgage to former properties, which were sold in order to purchase the property which was the subject of the dispute. After the marriage had broken down, but while the wife continued from time to time to occupy the matrimonial home, the husband (posing as solely entitled, and unmarried) obtained a mortgage. He later defaulted on the mortgage (and emigrated), and the issue was whether the mortgagee took subject to the interest of the wife. Held The mortgagee had constructive notice of the wife's interest, and therefore took subject to it. Comment The case is mostly a decision on the facts (was she really in occupation?), but is important because Caunce v. Caunce [1969] 1 WLR 286 was not followed, and Williams & Glyn's Bank v. Boland was regarded as illumina

Abbey National Building Society v Cann [1990] UKHL 3 is an English land law case concerning the right of a person with an equitable interest in a home to remain in actual occupation, if a bank has a charge and is seeking repossession. A controversial decision, it held that "actual occupation" entails some degree of permanence, and that if someone buys a property with a mortgage, the bank's charge is to be treated as having priority over any equitable interest. 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. La

Facts Mr Roger Street granted a term of occupation to Mrs Mountford for a rent. The written agreement included numerous references to the effect that it was a "licence". Several clauses also purported to retain for Mr Street rights of entry and termination. Mrs Mountford was also restricted in what she could do on the property, including bringing in animals and children. The agreement was so drafted to create a licence that would not come under the Rent Act, rather than a tenancy, which would entitle Mrs Mountford to the protection of the Rent Act. Mrs Mountford subsequently applied for rent protection, and the case progressed to the House of Lords. Judgment The Lords (Lord Scarman, Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Brightman and Lord Templeman) unanimously held - with Lord Templeman delivering judgment - that an agreement for exclusive possession for a term at a rent creates a lease or tenancy, regardless of what the parties call it. Lord Templeman me

Land law-Three important Antoniades v. Villiers(1988) The case involved an agreement for joint occupation of a furnished flat, the question being whether the occupiers enjoyed exclusive occupation. The agreement provided that each individual occupier was to share with anybody nominated by the landlord (which right the landlord never exercised), and stated that only a licence was conferred on each occupant. The agreement was drawn up a month before the House of Lords decision in Street v. Mountford, and on the assumption that Somma v. Hazelhurst was good law. The occupiers were a couple sharing a flat with only one bedroom, with a double bed (provided by the landlord, at the express request of the occupiers). Each agreement was entered into at the same time, and was on the same terms, including the amount of the rent. Held in the CA The Court of Appeal held that the occupiers did not enjoy exclusive occupation, and were licensees. Among the reasons for the decisions were that: