Land Law in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • Buckinghamshire County Council v Moran
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 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 (Civil Division)
    • 23 Jul 1975

    If I may expand that, Lord Cairns said: "It is the first principle upon which all Courts of Equity proceed", that it will prevent a person from insisting on his strict legal rights — whether arising under a contract, or on his title deeds, or by statute — when it would be inequitable for him to do so having regard to the dealings which have taken place between the parties, see Hughes v. Metropolitan Railway (1877) 2 A.C. at page 448.

  • 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.

  • Sedleigh-Denfield v O'Callaghan and Others
    • House of Lords
    • 24 Jun 1940

    A balance has to be maintained between the right of the occupier to do what he likes with his own, and the right of his neighbour not to be interfered with. It is impossible to give any precise or universal formula, but it may broadly be said that a useful test is perhaps what is reasonable according to the ordinary usages of mankind living in society, or more correctly in a particular society.

  • 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

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT