Case Issues Facts Principle

Constructive and
Resulting Trust:

Bull v Bull Resulting Trust Mother and son Resulting trust where there has
bought house been a contribution to purchase
together, son held price
legal title, mother and
son held equity
Llyods Bank v Constructive trust W made substantial Constructive trusts arise after
Rosset improvement to house purchase and the test for them
owned by husband is, 1) Express agreement and
detriment suffered (Express)
2)Common intention, in the lack
of an express agreement
(Implied).

Midland Bank v Constructive/resulting Husband and wife There is a presumption that the
Cooke trust, undue charged a loan against amount paid to purchase price
influence, sole legal house to secure a is the beneficial interest. This
ownership business overdraft, can be rebutted and the court
bank seeks possession will look at the whole course of
of house, wife the dealings in determining the
contributed 6% to beneficial interest of each party,
purchase price. not just purchase price.

Oxley v Hiscock Resulting trust, O contributed 20% of The court will look at the whole
constructive trust, purchase price and H course of dealings when
sole legal ownership the rest. Relationship determining the equity share
breaks down and the under a constructive trust and
house must be divided can look at a much broader
range of factors.

Stack v Dowden Joint legal ownership, H and W bought a There is a very strong
constructive trusts house together as presumption that joint legal
joint owners at law. owners will share the beneficial
Marriage breaks down interest equally. Equity follows
and house has to be the law, thus, at law equal, in
divided equity equal. Change to the
doctrine of constructive trusts,
can be rebutted but heavy
burden
Yaxley v Gotts Constructive trust, Housing block was The doctrine of constructive
proprietary estoppel constructed with the trust and proprietary estoppel
express intent to prevented a legal owner using
provide one of the his title to procure cheap labour
workers with a place and commit equitable fraud. An
to live for the imperfect gift can be enough to
remainder of his life. found a claim for proprietary
When the block was estoppel.
finished, the
freeholder refused to
grant a beneficial
interest
Case Issues Facts Principles

Co-
ownerhip/
Severance

Burgess v co-ownership, Legal and equitable joint The negotiations had amounted to
Rawnsley severance by tenants, equal contribution the severance of the joint tenancy
mutual to purchase price, and therefore, the equitable interests
agreement negotiation prior to death were held as tenants in common,
preventing the rules of the rights of
survivorship.

Stack v Joint legal H and W bought a house There is a very strong presumption
Dowden ownership, together as joint owners at that joint legal owners will share the
constructive law. Marriage breaks beneficial interest equally. Equity
trusts down and house has to be follows the law, thus, at law equal, in
divided equity equal. Change to the doctrine
of constructive trusts, can be rebutted
but heavy burden.
Williams v Co-ownership, There are three methods to sever an
Hensman severance, equitable joint tenancy 1)A joint
joint tenancies tenant acting on his own
share/bankruptcy/fraud 2)Mutual
agreement 3)Course of
dealing/mutual intention to be
tenants in common, not joint tenants.

Case Issues Facts Principle

Mortgages

Barclay Undue Husband and wife, charge Undue influence, 1)Actual UI 2)

Bank v Influence, mortgage against house for Presumed UI 2A)
O’Brien Borrowers the husbands business
Rights
 Mortgages, Money borrowed against 1) Mortgagor must provide detailed
Cheltenham enforcing the house to fund husbands and realistic analysis and schedule for
& power of sale, business repayment 2) Reasonable period in
Gloucester reasonable the AJA 73 would have a strong
BS v Norgan period. presumption of the remainder of the
mortgage. 3) length the difficulties
will last 4)reason for arrears
5)remainder of original term
6)relevant contractual terms
7)disregard accelerated payment
plan under s.8 AJA 73 8) Any other
considerations.

RBS v Undue
Etridge influence,
constructive
notice
Case Issues Facts Principle

Overriding
Interests:

City of Overriding/ Four people buy a house, If a mortgage is forwarded to two

London BS v overreaching two joint tenants at law
Flegg interests and four joint tenants in
equity, legal title holders
charge mortgage to house
and fail to keep up
payments
trustees, this will overreach the
beneficial interest of the equity
holders and thus they will lose their
share regardless of overriding
interests.

Kingsnorth Unregistered H holds house on trust for Money forwarded to one trustee
Finance v land, himself and wife, charges a cannot overreach the equitable
Tizard overreaching, mortgage and goes to interests of the other beneficiaries.
overriding America, bank seek The bank should have had notice of
interests possession, wife in actual the person in actual occupation.
registrable occupation and land not
charges registered

Williams & Registered H and W both contribute to If the mortgage is forwarded to one
Glynn Bank land, purchase price, H holds trustee, then the beneficial rights of
v Boland beneficial legal and H and W hold an implied trust will be an overriding
interest, beneficial. H charges a interest.
overriding mortgage and bank seeks
interest possession, having made
no inquiry. W had two
interests, her beneficial
 interest of the trust and
rights of occupation.
Neither had been
protected

Case Issues Facts Principle

Adverse
Possession

Buckingham Adverse Local authority had Overruled the ruling of Leigh v Jack
shire CC v possession, intended to later use land, that a future intent for the use of land
Moran dormant over 30 years land was could not be extinguished by a
possession closed off and became only squatter, can be now
accessible to owner of
neighbouring house

JA Pye v UK:

Registered
Unregistere
d Land

Kingsnorth Unregistered H holds house on trust for Money forwarded to one trustee
Finance v land, himself and wife, charges a cannot overreach the equitable
Tizard overreaching, mortgage and goes to interests of the other beneficiaries.
overriding America, bank seek The bank should have had notice of
interests possession, wife in actual the person in actual occupation.
registrable occupation and land not
charges registered. Principle
Midland Unregistered A land owner granted an An option to purchase (Class C iv)
Bank v land, options option to purchase some of must be registered to be enforceable
Green to purchase his land. This needed to be following the transfer of the legal
registered. Six years later estate. It is not fraud to take
they fell out, land sold to advantage of legal rights.
wife.
Williams & Registered H and W both contribute to If the mortgage is forwarded to one
Glynn Bank land, purchase price, H holds trustee, then the beneficial rights of
v Boland beneficial legal and H and W hold an implied trust will be an overriding
interest, beneficial. H charges a interest.
mortgage and bank seeks
 overriding possession, having made
interest no inquiry. W had two
interests, her beneficial
interest of the trust and
rights of occupation.
Neither had been
protected

Case Issues Facts Principle

Covenants

Halsall v Running of A housing development Positive covenants will pass in equity,

Brizell freehold was sold off to individuals if they are of mutual benefit and
covenants, and the maintenance of burden to the parties. Everyone has
positive the roads was required by to use the road and therefore, they
covenants future owners, positive should all pay a reasonable and
covenants do not run with proportionate share.
the land

Rhone v Freehold Previous owners of two
Stephens covenants, adjoined houses held a
running/enforc covenant to repair the roof
ement in that went over both
equity properties. The successor
freehold owners attempt
to enforce this when the
roof started leaking.
Tulk v Freehold Part of the land in Leicester
Moxhay covenants, Square was sold with the
running of intention that it would be
restrictive kept in an open state.
covenants in Successor freeholder of the
equity land attempted to build in
land, even though he had
knowledge of the covenant
Positive obligations will not run in
equity and personal covenants will
not run beyond the original parties.
Negative covenants will run in equity
providing 1)It is negative/restrictive
2)Must have identifiable dominant
tenement 3)Must
benefit/accommodate dominant
tenement 4) Must be intended to run
with land/no contrary intention
5)must comply with the rules of
equity

Case Issues Facts Principle

Proprietary
estoppel

Gillett v Holt Proprietary Farmer promises to leave
estoppel, the farm to underpaid
promise of gift worker, in exchange for his
lifetime work. Not in will
and house given to G when
owner still alive
A statement of intent that induces a
reliance can amount to more than a
mere revocable intention or fleeting
remark and will found a claim for
proprietary estoppel.

Jennings v Proprietary J worked for R for many A claim in proprietary estoppel

Rice Estoppel, years doing odd-jobs,
proportionate gardening and eventually
award to loss healthcare. R died
intestate and J sued, having
been promised he would
be looked after
cannot award you higher than the
amount you lost and the J got back
the value of the healthcare provided
to R.

Yaxley v Constructive Housing block was
Gotts trust, constructed with the
proprietary express intent to provide
estoppel, one of the workers with a
imperfect gifts place to live for the
remainder of his life.
When the block was
finished, the freeholder
refused to grant a
beneficial interest
The doctrine of constructive trust and
proprietary estoppel prevented a
legal owner using his title to procure
cheap labour and commit equitable
fraud. An imperfect gift can be
enough to found a claim for
proprietary estoppel.

Easements

Wheeldon v Easements, Land was divided by a sole Where there is no prior diversity of
Burrows quasi- legal owner into two occupation and there has been the
easement, no estates use of quasi-easements when the
prior diversity land was in sole ownership, these
of occupation quasi-easements will become legal
easements providing, 1)Easement
was continuous and apparent 2)It is
used at the time of the sale 3)It is
necessary for reasonable enjoyment.
Leases and
Licenses

Bruton v Leases/ Council grant a licence to A lease can be granted providing it

London Licences, charity, who grant licences adheres to the rules in Street v
Quadrant granting of for homeless people to Mountford, even if they do not have
leases and stay in house the proprietary interest. Leases and
licences. licences, granting of licence

Issues Statute/Sect Significance/Meaning/Definition Relevant Cases

ion

Unregistered S.198 LPA Registered interests are binding on everyone

Land 1925/S.4 LCA once registered.
72
Unregistered S.27 LPA Equitable interest can be overreached, when Flegg
Land 1925 paid to two trustees. If paid to one trustee
will not overreach if bank had notice it.
Unregistered S.199 LPA Purchasers will not be bound by Tizard. Caunce
Land 1925 unregistered/unenforceable/void charges or
interests. Unless 1)On reasonable inspection
of the property these would have been
apparent. 2)The agent or solicitor is aware of
the nterest/charge.
Unregistered S.2 LCA 1972 Types of charge = C(iv) Estate Contract, D(ii) Hollington v Rhodes
Land Freehold covenant, D(iii) Equitable = Not bound if
easement, F() spouse right of occupation interest not
registered.
Registered
Land
Registered S.4(1) LRA First registration is triggered by sale,
Land 2002 transfer, gift, lease of more than seven years
Registered S.118 LRA Lord chancellor may reduce the amount of
Land 2002 registrable interests in land
Registered SS.11-12 Interests must be protected on the register
Land SS.29-30 LRA to bind third parties.
2002
Registered Part 4 LRA The available charges and restrictions
Land 2002
Equity and the
Trust
Equity and the S.25(11) The If there is conflict between the rules of Walsh v Lonsdale
trust Judicature equity and the rules of the common law, =Specific
Acts 1873 then equity will prevail performance of a
lease that existed
only in equity.
Equity and the TLATA 1996 Regulation of trusts in modern law.
Trust
Buying and
Selling Land
Buying and S.1(1) LPA Only estates capable of subsisting at law are
Selling Land 1925 Fee-hold simple and leasehold simple
Buying and S.1(2) LPA Only charges available over land are:
Selling Land 1925 easement, mortgage, fee-simple, term of
years.
Buying and S.52 LPA Conveyance must be by deed.
Selling 1925
Buying and S.54(2) LPA Exceptions to S.52 are leases made for 3
Selling Land 1925 years or less.
Buying and S.62 LPA Deed transfers the legal estate and all
Selling Land 1925 advantages which go with it.
Buying and S2(1) LPMPA Contract for sale of land must be made by
Selling Land deed and incorporate all the terms.
Buying and S.2(2) LPMPA Document must set them out or make
Selling Land reference to another document
Buying and S.2(3) LPMPA The document must be signed by or on
Selling Land 1989 behalf of both parties to the contract
Buying and S.1 LPMPA A deed must be signed, witnessed and
Selling Land 1989 delivered.
Trusts of Land
Trusts of Land S.37 Concerns married couples, substantial
Matrimonial contribution to improvements and nature of
Proceedings the property, can raise the equitable share
and Property
Act 1970
Trusts of Land S.1(1)(a) Any trust of property which consists of land
Trustees of can be considered a trust.
Land and the
Appointment
of Trustees
Act 1996
Trusts of Land S.1(2) TLATA S.1(1)(a) can be any type of trust, bare,
implied, constructive. Etc.
Trusts of Land S.6(1) TLATA Trustees have all the power of an absolute
1996 owner
Trusts of Land S.6(5) TLATA When exercising powers, trustees must have
regard to interests of beneficiaries
Trusts of Land S.11(1) Trustees must consult beneficiaries to the
TLATA land before exercising any function over the
land. Trustees must also give effect to
wishes of beneficiaries.
Trusts of Land S.3 TLATA Abolishes the old doctrine of conversion
Trusts of Land S.12 TLATA Gives the beneficiaries of the trust the right
of occupation of the land
Trusts of Land S.12(1) Can exclude one or more, but not all
TLATA beneficiaries.
Trusts of Land S.12(3) Trustees can impose reasonable conditions
TLATA on the beneficiaries
Co-
ownership/
severance
Co-ownership S.1(6) LPA Legal title can only be held as joint tenancy
1925
Co-ownership S.36(1) LPA Legal estate held by joint tenants is held on a
1925 statutorily implied trust of land
S.53(1)(b) Co-owners can create an express trust on
LPA 1925 conveyance of a property
S.184 LPA Law presumes the oldest person dies first,
1925 when it is not clear
S.34(2) LPA Maximum of four joint tenants at law. Vest
1925 in the first four of full age
SS.12-13 Co-owner can be excluded from a property
TLATA 1996 denying him right of possession
S.36(2) LPA Legal joint tenancy cannot be severed, Re Drapers
1925 however an equitable joint tenancy can be conveyance = court
by written notice explicitly stating so. summons could
also sever JT
S.196(3) LPA Notice is considered binding if delivered to Kinch v Bullard =
1925 correct address, and is registered or does not have to be
recorded delivery read. Williams v
Hensman = three
additional ways to
sever
Forfeiture Court can prevent severance by unlawful Re K
Act 1982 killing if it feels that is correct. Must use
judicial discretion
Resolving co-
ownership
disputes
Resolving co- S.14 TLATA Trustees, beneficiaries and creditors can
ownership apply to the court in order to exercise their
disputes rights under the trust.
S.15(1)
TLATA