Pinekerry v Needs: A Conflict Between Law and Practice
| Date | 01 January 1994 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1994.tb01927.x |
| Published date | 01 January 1994 |
January
19941
Pinekerry
v
Needs:
A
Conflict Between
Law
and Practice
only for
so
long as the landlord continued to be a highway authority, with a
possible limitation upon the landlord's right to assign to a non-highway authority;
and in the view of the Court of Appeali2 that the notice limitation might only
have been valid for
so
long as it was still possible that the land might be required
for road widening, and then have become invalid if that ever became impossible,
for example because the relevant road ceased to exist, because effectively an
absolute bar to the right to give notice.
Conclusion
If the argument made here is accepted, then the Prudential case poses a problem
for conveyancers and property lawyers
-
and for judges. Can this House of Lords
decision be simply disregarded on the ground that its ratio decidendi is plainly
wrong, because logically inconsistent with the established and necessary
understanding of periodic tenancies? Or is the decision to be regarded as right, but
the reasoning not to be followed because untenable; and, if so, what other
interpretation
of
the case is to be imposed over the more obvious one? Or must the
case be adhered to despite its apparent shortcomings? All that can be said by way
of conclusion is that there is no easy answer here.
Pinekerry
v
Needs:
A
Conflict Between Law and
Practice
Jean
Howell"
The Court of Appeal decision in Pinekerry Ltd
v
Needs (Kenneth) (Contractors)
Ltdl illustrates the gap that can exist between law and practice, in this case
between land registration law and land registration practice.
Pinekerry:
the Facts, the Decision and the Issues
By a conveyance of
18
January 1989 ('the Monogram conveyance'), the plaintiff,
Pinekerry Ltd, obtained the legal title to freehold unregistered land.
As
the land
was within an area of compulsory registration at the date of the Monogram
conveyance, it was necessary for Pinekerry to make an application to register the
title under section 123(1) of the Land Registration Act 1925.
No
application was
made within the two month period allowed by the section and, under its terms,
Pinekerry lost legal title to the land, which reverted to the original vendor,
Monogram.2 Pinekerry was thus unable, after 18 March 1989, to convey a legal
title.
12
[1992]
1
EGLR
47.
*Faculty
of
Law, University
of
Manchester.
I
(1992)
64
P
&
CR
245.
2
The section does not in fact say anything about the destination of the legal estate. in these
circumstances, but
it
is always assumed that
it
reverts
to
the original vendor who holds
it
as bare
trustee.
0
The Modern
Law
Review Limited
1994
121
To continue reading
Request your trial