Irish Property Law Cases

Front 1

Hughes Decision

(promisory estoppel)

Back 1

LLsought to forfeit the lease as the tenant had not carried out the repairs asrequired under their leasehold agreement. They negotiated and the LL promisedthat repair work could be deferred. Later LL was estopped from going back onhis promise to extend the time during which the tenant could carry out repairs

Front 2

Coombe v Coombe

(promisory estoppel)

Back 2

o heldthat estoppel may be ancillary to a cause of action but never a cause of actionin itself : “estoppel acts as a shield but never as a sword”

Front 3

Ramsden v. Dyson

(proprietory estoppel)

Back 3

iflegal owner of property promises to give it to another and that other spendsmoney or otherwise acts to his detriment on the faith of the promise the legalowner may be ordered to convey the property or hold It subject to the rights ofanother

Front 4

Inwards v. Baker

(proprietory estoppel)

Back 4

o Bakerwanted to build a bungalow but not enough money for a site. Father suggestedthat he build it on his land. In his will before bungalow was constructed thefather had left the bungalow to a lady he lived with. D was entitled to remainon the bungalow for the rest of his life. Was permitted a license. In othercases the doctrine has been used to give a person a right of way.

Front 5

Pascoe v. Turner

(estoppel)

Back 5

o -example of using this estoppel as a sword. P lived with T in a house, later had an affair and told her everythingin it was hers. She spent money on it. Later he tried to get her to leave.Court considered granting her a license but felt to protect her it would giveher a fee simple.

Front 6

o Walton Stores v. Maher:

(unified estoppel doctrine)

Back 6

§ Passumed a legal relationship had existed between parties

§ Dinduced P to adopt the assumption

§ Pacts in reliance of the assumption

§ D knewor intended him to do soP’s action would equal detrimentif the expectation was not fulfilled

Front 7

Gatien Motor Company-

Back 7

the Landlord of a service station refused to renew a license seeking to ensure that the lessee would not be entitled to a statutory right to a new tenancy. Tenant agreed that for a week they would remain in possession as a caretaker. Court included this caretaker week as the transaction must be seen as a whole. Clear intentions of the parties overrode exclusive possession. (Called Break in use)

Front 8

Irish Shell – facts

Back 8

SC found it necessary to look at the terms of the agreement between the parties: in return for a hire charge for the use of the petrol pumps, tanks and equipment, the Plaintiff allowed D to use the site. No sum was expressed to be payable for the use of the site. Agreement was described as license. Court said, “Whether the transaction is a license does not depend on the label which is put on it. It depends on the nature of the transaction itself. We have to see if it is a personal privilege (in which case it is a license) or whether it grants an interest in the land (in which case it is a tenancy

Front 9

Factorswere established in the Irish Shell Case

Back 9

o Licenseescarried business of a full garageo Licenseeswere only ones with keys to the petrol pumpso Therewas a term permitting P to enter and inspecto Nointerference clause was omittedo Clausethat licensees would not have exclusive possession was omitted. [Absence ofexclusive possession definitely rules out a lease. Exclusive possession isindicative of a lease means that tenant can control land to the exclusion ofthe landlord]. If it seems they are trying to avoid exclusive possession thenclause may be deemed as a sham clause. o Periodicpayments for “hire of equipment” was actually rent

Front 10

Difference between Irish position and English position on estoppel·

Back 10

In Ireland, as opposed to England, exclusive possession may override clear intention of parties: this would imply a change in mutual intentions, overriding intentions of parties as shown in their precontractual negotiations.

Front 11

Governors of NationalMaternity Hospital Dublin v. McGouran :

Back 11

Was a shop and canteen in the D hospital. Parties entered into a licence for one year subject to the “licence fee”. Three years later P claimed an entitlement to a new tenancy under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1980. Court considered the intentions of the parties and the existence of exclusive possession together and concluded that the P was actually a licensee (particularly given the hospital had the capacity to exercise the dominion over the property. License clause was not a sham clause.

Front 12

Why was AP instigated?

Back 12

o Toensue certainty of title in cases of unregistered lando To protectD from old claims and deter legal owner from selling on their rightso Toprevent land from becoming unmarketableo To providea remedy where the squatter spent money on property with the belief it was his.

Front 13

Doyle v. ONeill

Back 13

o Occupation of land must be adverse. In this case regarding a waste land, the D was storing scrap metals there but the possession was not adverse because the D was always using land in the acknowledgement of the P’s true ownership and occasionally asking for permission to use the land and sometimes even offering to purchase the land.

Front 14

Murphy v Murphy

Back 14

Son is farming all lands as one, banking all income in his name, mortgaging all lands was not inconsistent with mother’s rights as a legal owner.

Front 15

Hickson v. Boylan

Back 15

walking,shooting and raising pheasants not enough,

Front 16

Battelle v. Pinemeadow –

Back 16

P asks landowner about the land, and he said they were disinterested . He then built a garnden and later fenced it. Later ownership changed hands, new owner demolishes garden. Ruling: not an adverse occupier if the owner is unaware of his right to the property and tells occupier he does not care who occupies it.

Front 17

Leigh v. Jack

Back 17

squatters act must be adverse to the future intended use of the land. English position is that irrespective of the owner’s future use, adverse possession will be established if it is shown that the squatter had the intention to exclude everyone from property.

Front 18

Durack Manufactoring LtdCase

Back 18

P had the intention to build two buildings on two different plots of land. One field was left vacant and D grazed cattle and built an electric fenxw on it. This was deemed not enough. Court said only relevant intention was that of the squatter and that here the squatter intended to take possession of the land, if the squatter’s intention was only to occupy land until the legal owner decided to implement his future plans for the land then the action might fail.

Front 19

o Feehan v. Leamy

Back 19

was a case where established to prevent a claimant from establishing dispossession all a claimant must do is look over the hedge of the land on a continuous road deemed to be part of the land a few times per year. Thus test for AP is that you must show actual factual possession and that it is adverse to the land owner and that sufficient animus possedendi exists.

Front 20

Grant of Probate

Back 20

Exectutor of the will

Front 21

Grant of administration with Will Annexed

Back 21

For someone other than the executor

Front 22

Grant of adminstration Intestate

Back 22

Died without a will

Front 23

Tears on the Will?

Back 23

Evidence will be required to show that the testator did not intend to revoke the will. Can be through an affidavit by an witness:

-Someone who witnessed execution of the will

-Person who was responsible for the tear

-Person with the custody of the will

-Person who found the Will

Front 24

wording for grant of administration

Back 24

"and that he did therein name as sole executor XYZ who survived the deceased and has since died without proving such will and that I am the residuary legatee and devisee named in the will"

Front 25

Section 117

Back 25

Allows a child to make an application to court for the provision to be made to them. Court is obliged to consider the POV of a prudent and just parent and take into account the position of each child. Test is whether parent failed in their moral duty to provide for the child.

Factors:

- what was left to surviving spouse (will not take from her/his share)

-no of kids

-means of testator

-age of child, position, prospects

-if testator has already made provisions for the child. High onus of proof placed on applicant

Front 26

Section 121

Back 26

Applies to the disposition of property which under which beneficial ownership vests in possession in a donnee within 3 years before the death of a testator if was done with the purpose of defeating or diminishing spouse of leaving children insufficiently provided for them will be deemed to be part of the estate.

Front 27

E.B. v. S.S.

Back 27

Applicant wanted more of his mother's estate but had already depleted a previous share within a short period of time. Used to have a drug and alcohol problem. Belief was that more financial assistance would not necessarily help. May take into account long illness, physical or mental disability, etc.

Front 28

Co habitants

Back 28

couple in an intimate and committed relationship who are not related to each other.
Factors: duration of relationship, basis in which they live together, degree of financial dependance, agreements on finance, dependent children, degree in which they present themselves as a couple.

Usually need to be living 2 years with kids or 5 years in other cases

May provide for an order for provision out of the estate, the provision cannot be greater than what a spouse would receive.

Front 29

4 characteristics of Joint Tenancy

Back 29

Unity of Possession

Unity of Interest

Unity of Title

Unity of Time (PITT)

Front 30

Severing a Joint Tenancy through Common Law

Back 30

1. Alienation to 3rd party (destroys unity of title)

2. Unilateral dealing (selling to middleman and then back to self- destroys unity of title)

3. Act of 3rd party through statutory powers (ex. sold property by judgment mortgage)

4. Acquisition of Additional Interests (destroy unity of interest)

Front 31

Severing a Joint Tenancy in Equity

Back 31

When equity intervenes to give effect to intention of parties: Courts will frequently intervene in business situations.

1. mutual intention of parties. See Burgess v. Rawnsley Case - man buys property with a woman who was of belief that she would occupy first floor. He was of the belief that they would marry and use property as the martial home. He tried to buy her portion of the property from her share which court held was a severance in equity.

2. Course of dealings- showing that relations between parties have fallen

3. Carrying out an act upon own share, even it uncompleted

Front 32

Banks v. Goodfellow-

Back 32

Testator convinced he was being pursued by evil spirits. Yet he took care of his finances and gave sensible instructions to testator. He leaves the bulkl of his estate tot his neice who had taken care of him. Test for valid animus testadii - "ought to be capable of making a will with the understanding of the nature of business he is engaged in, a recollection of property he means to dispose of, of the persons who are the object of the bounty, and the manner in which it is to be distributed between them."

Front 33

Undue Influence Burden

Back 33

Is on the person who pledges undue influence to prove it was present. Must prove
1. Person had the power to overbear the testator

2. Exercised that power

3. the will was the result of the exercise of that power

Front 34

S 120 of Succession Act

Back 34

provides that "sane person who has been guilty of manslaughter of another shall be precluded from taking any share in the estate of another, except if the share was made after the act constituting the offence and shall not be entitled to make an application under 117."

Front 35

Interpretation of Wills

Back 35

Must be read in the natural sense, mindful of the intentions of the testator. Court is to ascertain the intentions of the testator- a general intention overrides a specific intention. Steps:

1.Give each word its natural meaning

2. Look at other material parts to make harmonious sense

3. If an ambiguity exists consider intentions of the testator

4. can use aids such as the presumption of early vesting, presumption against intestacy, in favor of equality.

5. See if any of these conflict with the rule of law (statutory provisions)

6. May get help from other courts.

Front 36

Extrinsic Evidence

Back 36

Is only allowed instances of ambiguity. May want to use the armchair principle where one sees from the testator's point of view.

Front 37

Dwyer v. Keegan

Back 37

If a spouse dies leaving no gift, the surviving spouse automatically becomes owner of the LRS on probate or on death. If there is a gift in the will, then the gift will be taken unless spouse elects to take LRS.

Front 38

s 117

Back 38

This application may be made within 6 months of grant of probate. If it is believed that the parent : failed in moral duty. Court will take the position of a prudent and just parent taking into account the position of all children and other circumstances.

Front 39

D(s)v. K(M)

Back 39

Daughter had diabetes and son had schizophrenia. Left most to son. Court held that as practically nothing was left to the daughter they allowed a provision of land to her which would not adversely affect son.

Front 40

B(e) v. S(s)

Back 40

P's father was a successful businessman with 4 kids. Son had dropped out of university, become drug addict, but stopped and married with 3 kids. He did not get a lot from the estate and court held that the P's kids are not a factor

Front 41

Reilley

Back 41

Two brothers acquired a property together. One brother virtually took almost exclusive care while the other brother left his share to Reilley. Court held that this was a joint tenancy in equity.

Front 42

Difference between English law and Irish Law

Back 42

English law allows for severance of JT in equity by a simple declaration that the owner no longer wishes to be a joint tenant. This is doubtful in Irish law.