The Claimant land owners were successful in their claim that the Defendants did not own two strips of land abutting their land. The transfers of adjacent parcels of land that abutted land that was later made into a road should be correctly interpreted as granting an immediate right over the land over which a road was proposed to be built.
|
The Appellant was successful in appealing against the decision of a judge that his purchase of a property and lease back was at an undervalue. Whilst the price was substantially lower than the unencumbered freehold value, the Respondent failed to show section 423 of IA 1986 applied as the premium value of the tenancy made up the shortfall in purchase price.
|
The Appellant Travellers were in part successful in their appeal to the extent that the Court did not have the power to make a possession order in respect of a separate piece of land owned by the Respondent but not occupied by the Appellant Travellers. The decision in the case of Drury v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2004) EWCA Civ 200 (2004) 1 WLR 1906 allowing such an order was incorrect.
|
The Appellant landowner was successful in appealing against the decision of a judge that the landowner’s asserted right to use a servient track to access his dominant land was limited to all reasonable and usual purposes relating to the use of the land as “garden ground”. On the proper construction of the relevant conveyances the track could lawfully be used for the purposes of building houses on the dominant land and their occupation when built.
|
The court had to determine whether the owner of a barge which had been moored to mooring rings on the tidal part of the River Thames, had acquired title by way of adverse possession to the river bed for the footprint of the barge. In this case the title had not been registered and the vessel rested on the bed at low tide. It was held that adverse possession did not require physical contact with the river bed at all times It was not required that a squatter has to build on the land and in this ca ...
|
The trial judge had been correct to conclude that a common intention constructive trust had been created with a husband a wife owning a property in equal shares. This was notwithstanding the fact that as a result of the husband’s innocent misrepresentation the couple entered into an agreement surrendering the wife’s sole beneficial interest.
|
The Appeal by a home seller against an order for specific performance of a contract for the sale of a property granted in favour of the respondent purchaser was dismissed. The sale had proceeded by the home seller’s agent acting under oral authority. Until the equitable title in the property was transferred to the buyer from the seller, the contract for sale was nothing more than a contract to which normal rules of agency would apply.
|
There was no principle of law in adverse possession claims that only acts of possession by the paper owner carried out during a limited period after the claimed ouster that would or might serve to defeat the claim that there had been such an ouster. Such a proposition was contrary to principle.
|
The Appellant company unsuccessfully appealed against a decision not to exercise the discretion under the Law of Property Act 1925 to order repayment of a deposit. The CA held that there needed to be something special or exceptional to justify overriding the ordinary contractual expectations of the parties.
|
The redevelopment of a property constituted “rebuilding or renewal” within the meaning of a right of entry that accordingly permitted the property owner to enter the adjoining property for the purpose of carrying out the works.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 |