Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

LAND (Leases (Definition Compiled by the HL in Street v Mountford [1985] …

- - - - Importance?
        (1) difference between proprietary and personal rights
        (2) residential leases provide protection for the tenant and obligations for the landlord.
        (3) after Housing Act 1988 assured shorthold tenancies were introduced which reduced landlord obligation making landlords happier to provide leases.
        (4) specialist companies however provide services for vacant freeholds to put people in with licenses (so no protection) and specifically not licenses, this could leave some people without protection if they weren't aware.
  - - - Forfeiture
        (1) forfeiture and re-entry have to be expressly set out in the lease otherwise the lease cannot be forfeited.
        (2) primarily used to as leverage over tenant to uphold their covenants as otherwise they lose valuable lease
        (3) requires some breach by the tenant (Clays Lane v Patrick)
        (4) equity can step in to relieve tenants (but this is expensive)
        (5) after forfeiture tenants become trespassers and subleases/mortgages are destroyed. Mortgagees can claim relief.
      - Losing Right to Forfeit
        
        Waiver
        (1) LLs can unwittingly waiver a breach of the lease and lose their right to forfeit. All they have to do it:
        (a) have knowledge that the breach has occurred, and
        (b) they act in a way that shows they wish to continue the lease, and
        (c) they communicate to the tenant that the lease is continuing, then
        (d) the right to forfeit has been waive.
        (2) examples of act in continuance include accepting rent and acting on other provisions in the lease
      - Forfeiture for Non-Payment
        
        Formalities
        (1) formal demand for rent is required
        (2) for long residential leases LL must serve notice for payment between 30 and 60 days post notice (s.76-77 Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002).
        (3) re-entry cannot occur until the unpaid sum exceeds a certain amount and has been unpaid for a certian amount of time ( s.167 CALRA '02)
        
        Notices
        (1) before an s.146 LPA '25 notice can be given, under s.168 CALRA '02 LLs must go to a tribunal to get a determination that a breach has occurred.
        (2) under s.146 LPA '25, tenants have one final chance to pay up, and will detail the breach, the remedy, and the compensation required.
        
        Notice of Breach
        (1) following Akici v Butlin [2005] CA held that the specification of the breach has to be very specific (as the court takes a stance against forfeiture).
        
        Specification of Remedy
        (1) the remedy asked for can only be valid if it restores the LL to his position before the breach in a reasonable time (Expert Clothing v Hillgate [1986]).
        
        Validity of Remedies
        (1) when a negative covenant is breached it is only remediable if the mischief caused by the breach can be removed. This can cause issues where the breach is subletting etc
        (2) Scala House v Forbes [2013] - clause not to sublet, sublet occurred and LL commenced proceedings after 14 days. Court held that as this kind of breach could not be remedied, 14 days was an adequate period of time to start possession.
        (3) Savva v Hussein [1997] - alterations to signs/facades could be removed however, this was not outlined in the s.146 notice and so the forfeiture was not valid.
        (4) Akici in obiter - anything that does not transfer legal rights (so anything but subletting) will probably be remediable under s.146.
        (5) if land is tainted by breach (e.g. stigma of running a brothel) then it cannot be remedied (Rugby School v Tannahill [1935])
- - - - Insurance Principle - the guarantee that any loss incurred following reliance on the registry will be compensated by a statutory fund.
      - Curtain Principle - certain equitable interests are allowed to remain 'hidden' behind the registry's curtain. Although this does not remove the validity from transactions.
      - Mirror Principle - the registry should mirror the interests in reality. 1/2 true as it does show registered title, and is protected by notice BUT overriding interests do not appear on registry.
  - - - Common Law Rules
        
        Completion:
        
        Previously, deed was transferred on the day under s.52(1) LPA 1925, and this transferred the legal title too.
        
        Modern-day, title is no longer transferred on completion but the registry is instructed to record you as the proprietor. Deed is only to prove to registry that you are the proprietor.
        
        Registration:
        
        Deed is taken to the registry for title to be legally registered
        
        There can be a 'registration gap' between completion and registration where theoretically the title could be changed before you can register.
        
        Exchange:
        
        s.2 LP(MPA)A '89 - has to be writing and signature
        
        Conveyancing contracts are all standard form.
        
        Both parties have to have signed to prove/complete exchange.
      - Equity Rules
        
        Exchange
        
        Entering a contract matches the common law
        
        Can give specific performance as remedy
        
        There can be a proprietary claim at exchange where you get an 'equitable' title which can be registered but is not overriding.
        
        Completion/Registration
        
        Irrelevant as equitable title is given at exchange (Scott v Southern Pacific [2014]).
- - - - Tenancy -
        
        Joint Tenants - title is passed onto descendants
        
        Tenancy in Common - title is not passed on, shares are assimilated by other owner upon death.
        
        In law, only joint tenants can survive as they would have dual proprietorship that is registered on the registry.
        In equity, either can survive, as both have equitable interests.
  - - - Starting Point -
        1, that sole title holder has all of the beneficial interest, and it is down to the other party to prove otherwise.
      - History -
        
        HL is inconclusive as to whether intention can be imputed or not (Pettitt and Gissing)
        
        Remedial constructive trusts were allowed to remedy parties as opposed to viewing intention (Eves v Eves)
        
        Ideas of intention were subsequently re-entrenched (Lloyds v Rosset and so there is still no suitable solution)
      - Lloyds v Rosset [1990] - unless there is evidence of a discussion and then detrimental reliance, there HAS to have been a direct financial contribution to the mortgage or purchase price.
        Oxley v Hiscock added the idea of 'holism' and viewing all the facts as whole to establish an interest, however, this was later reduced to only apply to quantifying the interest not establishing it.
    - - Starting Point -
        
        the beneficial title is held jointly, and equally between parties, and onus is on the party disputing this claim.
      - Stack v Dowden [2007] - equity follows the law (so interest follows title), but this can be displaced by exceptional circumstances (as in Stack which had oddly separated finances). Hale provides a non-exhaustive list at para 69.
      - Jones v Kernott [2011] - the court can impute a common intention between parties to split the interest. So not necessarily 50/50.
    - - If in a 'status-relationship' (e.g. marriage/civil partnership) then trust rules do not apply as they are governed by their own statutory rules. HOWEVER a lot of relationships fall outside of these so trusts are still required.
- - - - Occupation
        
        (1) does not give a beneficial interest (that comes from a trust) but can make the interest overriding if it exists
        
        (2) does not secure occupation forever, bank can still apply for possession/sale, it simply secures beneficiary priority.
        
        (3) does not apply to joint legal owners (as you agreed to the mortgage as the legal owner).
        
        (4) banks could enter property to see who was in occupation to prevent this but in reality they just use waivers that secure them first priority.
        
        (5) Sch. 3 para 2 LRA 2002 - occupation must be revealed on inquriy, and be obvious to any reasonable person inspecting the premises
        
        (6) if beneficiary knows of mortgage and is benefiting from it then their implied consent is given to give bank priority (Equity & Law v Prestidge [1992])
        
        (7) children cannot override (Hypo-Mortgage v Robinson [1996]), but you can override if you are absent (e.g. in hospital; Chhokar v Chhokar [1984])
        
        (8) under Abbey National v Cann [1990] actual occupation must be established at the time of completion of mortgage contract to be overriding. Further, acquisition mortgages give title and are completed simultaneously therefore meaning actual occupation cannot take place. Boland therefore now only applies to second mortgages.
- - - - Best v SS for Justice [2015]
        squatting possessed property and put money into repairs etc, there was no consent but no dispute. Applied for title under LRA 2002 but registrar refused saying as LASPO 2012 made it criminal, title could not be applied for. Court held that Acts worked independently of one another and so title could still be applied for.
        Land Law is not influenced by the moralities of criminal law, it is a body unto itself.