Land Law in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • Buckinghamshire County Council v Moran
    • Court of Appeal
    • 13 Feb 1989

    If the law is to attribute possession of land to a person who can establish no paper title to possession, he must be shown to have both factual possession and the requisite intention to possess (" animus possidendi"). A person claiming to have "dispossessed" another must similarly fulfil both these requirements.

  • Gissing v Gissing
    • House of Lords
    • 07 Jul 1970

    A resulting, implied or constructive trust—and it is unnecessary for present purposes to distinguish between these three classes of trust—is created by a transaction between the trustee and the cestui qui trust in connection with the acquisition by the trustee of a legal estate in land, whenever the trustee has so conducted himself that it would be inequitable to allow him to deny to the cestui qui trust a beneficial interest in the land acquired.

  • Crabb v Arun District Council
    • Court of Appeal
    • 23 Jul 1975

    Short of an actual promisye, if he, by his words or conduct, so behaves as to lead another to believe that he will not insist on his strict legal rights — knowing or intending that the other will act on that belief — and he does so act, that again will raise an equity in favour of the other: and it is for a Court of Equity to say in what way the equity may besatisfied.

    If the plaintiff has any right, it is an equity arising out of the conduct and relationship of the parties. In such a case I think it is now wall settled law that the Court, having analysed and assessed the conduct and relationship of the parties, has to answer three questions. Secondly, what is the extent of the equity, if one is established? And, thirdly, what is the relief appropriate to satisfy the equity?

  • Lloyds Bank Plc v Rosset and Others
    • House of Lords
    • 08 May 1990

    The first and fundamental question which must always be resolved is whether, independently of any inference to be drawn from the conduct of the parties in the course of sharing the house as their home and managing their joint affairs, there has at any time prior to acquisition, or exceptionally at some later date, been any agreement, arrangement or understanding reached between them that the property is to be shared beneficially.

  • Thorner v Curtis and Others
    • House of Lords
    • 25 Mar 2009

    Nevertheless most scholars agree that the doctrine is based on three main elements, although they express them in slightly different terms: a representation or assurance made to the claimant; reliance on it by the claimant; and detriment to the claimant in consequence of his (reasonable) reliance (see Megarry & Wade, Law of Real Property, 7th edition (2008) para 16-001; Gray & Gray, Elements of Land Law, 5th edition (2009) para 9.2.8; Snell's Equity, 31st edition (2005) paras 10-16 to 10-19; Gardner, An Introduction to Land Law (2007) para 7.1.1).

  • Attorney-General v Blake (pet. all.)
    • House of Lords
    • 27 Jul 2000

    A trespasser who enters another's land may cause the landowner no financial loss. In this type of case the damages recoverable will be, in short, the price a reasonable person would pay for the right of user: see Whitwam v. Westminster Brymbo Coal Co. [1892] 2 Ch. 538, and the 'wayleave' cases such as Martin v. Porter (1839) 5 M. and W. 351 and Jegon v. Vivian (1871) L.R. 6 Ch. 742

See all results
Legislation
See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results