Land Law

Front 1

Begum v Issa

Back 1

Exceptionally reasonable not to disclose in actual occupation

Front 2

Thompson v Foy

Back 2

AO: Don't need to actually inspect; must actually make inquiry

Front 3

Link Lending v Busturd

Back 3

Temporary absence permitted but need intention to return

Front 4

Abbey national v Cann

Back 4

AO: don't need personal presence; agents suffice

Front 5

Lloyds Bank v Rosset

Back 5

Builders (1 sleeping) sufficient

Front 6

Strand v Caswell

Back 6

1. Occupation by licensee insufficient

2. Mere presence of furniture insufficient

Front 7

Chaudary v Yavuz

Back 7

Occupation distinct from mere use

Front 8

Williams & Glynn's Bank v Boland

Back 8

Can be alongside the RP

Front 9

Chhokar v Chokkar

Back 9

Can have regular absences

If your AO is hidden, you may retain your AO and purchaser takes subject to it BUT exceptional facts as purchaser was also complicit

Front 10

AIB v Turner

Back 10

Not just visited occasionally (house in Barbados)

Weeks leading up to disposition; not just on the day

Front 11

Goldharp v McLeod

Back 11

Rectification affects priority

Presumption in favour of rectification unless exceptional circumstances apply - 'substnatial identifiable prejudice'

Retrospective rectification

Front 12

Swift 1st v Chief Land Registrar

Back 12

Confirmed availability of indemnity for rectification

Could claim indemnity despite OI because they were claiming in good faith under a forged disposition

Front 13

1. Smith v molyneaux

2. BP v Buckler

Back 13

AP

1. Intention defeated by unilateral permissions or landowner

2. Even if AP doesn't accept it

Too generous to landowner

Front 14

Capehorn v Harris

Confirmed in downes v downes 2019

Back 14

Same principles apply to acquisition and quantification co-ownership

Front 15

Lloyds v Rosset

Back 15

Acquisition Co-ownership

Front 16

Quantification Co-ownership

Back 16

Stack v Dowden

Front 17

Gould v Kemp

Back 17

Right of Survivorship under JT

Front 18

Stack v Dowden, confirmed in 2029 Horn v Chipperfield

Back 18

Equity follows the law

Front 19

Oxley v Hiscock

Back 19

Under a CT, in the absence of agreement about shares, a fair share will be imputed. Fair does not mean equal

Front 20

Stokes v Anderson

Back 20

Mistress helped husband pay off his wife for half of the house; she got half this share

Front 21

Clough v Killey

Back 21

CT: 50% share discussed, so got 50%

Front 22

Laskar v Laskar

Back 22

RT: inferred from contribution to purchase price

Only financial so narrower than CT

Front 23

Sekhon v Alisa

Back 23

RT: Gifts and loans insufficient

Front 24

Mumford v Ashe

Back 24

Discounts and vouchers can count

Front 25

Marr v Collie

Back 25

Key case, eradicated old presumptions and said just look at intent of parties (Roche*: decision brought clarity) but old presumptions were clear, now law is messy (Sloan*)

RT: must prove you paid and this was for puchase

Mortgages for home improvements not

Front 26

Finch v Hall

Back 26

Co-owners agreement there would be no sale prevented sale - s15 1a TOLATA

Front 27

Chun v Ho

Back 27

Coownership: Court did not order sale as house required for purpose

Front 28

Rodway v Landy

Back 28

TOLATA order: land divided

Front 29

Holman v Howes

Back 29

No order for sale unless equitable owner consented dye to unconscionability

Front 30

Begum v Hafiz

Back 30

Court cannot order 1 co-owner to sell to another

Front 31

White v White

Back 31

S15 TOLATA non-exhaustive

Front 32

Bedson v Bedson

Back 32

S15 consideration: land required for continuing business opp

Front 33

Edwards v RBS

Back 33

Health and welfare of Bs, including if house adapted for them

Front 34

Cawthorne v Dunn

Back 34

TOLATA S15: normally if there has been an express agreement, court will adhere to this, particularly if it is a written agreement, but it is not obliged to as these are not binding. But will need good reasons to depart

Front 35

Re karia

Back 35

Exceptional circumstances under IA:

Not making a family homeless

Front 36

Nicholls v Lan

Back 36

Exceptional circumstances under IA:

Maybe extreme illness of a child

But didn't follow Barca v Mears

Front 37

Dean v Stout

Back 37

Exceptional circumstances under IA:

Sale even when there are exceptional circumstances

Front 38

Everitt X Budhram

Back 38

Delaying sale for terminally ill spouse likely to die in 1 year

Front 39

Harrington v Bennett

Back 39

Exceptional circumstances under IA:

Being able to get a higher price not

Front 40

Grant v Baker

Back 40

Exceptional circumstances under IA:

Child with special needs no

Front 41

Goodman v Gallant

Back 41

Co-ownership: an express declaration is conclusive

Severance: you sever a JT to equality. Some suggestions obiter that a written declaration to the contrary would override this (Finch v Baker) but no cases deciding