Property Law

Hill v Tupper [1863] 159 ER 51

• C leased land by a Canal and was granted the exclusive right to hire out boats on that stretch.

• D also hired out boats, reducing C’s profits.

• C claimed this right was a profit à prendre (an in rem property right enforceable against the world).

• The court held it was only a personal contractual right, not a recognised property right

Keppell v Bailey (1834) 39 ER 1042

• The owners of ironworks promised to use one railway (the Trevil Railroad) to transport limestone and ironstone,

• When new owners built a different railway, the Trevil shareholders tried to enforce the promise.

• The court said the promise was only a personal obligation, not a property right.

King v David Allen & Sons Billposting Ltd [1916] 2 AC 54

• A cinema tenant gave C a license to put up adverts on the cinema grounds.

• The lease ended, and a new tenant refused to honour the advertising arrangement.

• C argued the license should still bind the new tenant.

• The House of Lords held the license ended with the lease and was purely personal, not a property right.

AA v Persons Unknown [2019] EWHC 3556 (Comm), [2020] 4 WLR 35

• Hackers encrypted a company’s system and demanded ransom. The insurer, paid 109.25 Bitcoin, with 96 traced to Bitfinex wallets.

• The insurer applied for proprietary and disclosure orders to recover the Bitcoin.

• Bryan J held that Bitcoin qualifies as property under the Ainsworth criteria, even if it does not fit neatly as a chose in possession or in action.

Swift v Dairywise (No 1) [2000] 1 WLR 1177, [2000] BCC 642

• Farmers borrowed money from Company A, giving milk quotas as security.

• Quotas were transferred to Company B (linked to A) but meant to be held for A’s benefit.

• When A went into liquidation, liquidators claimed the quotas.

• Court held milk quotas are property and can be held on trust.

Bocardo SA v Star Energy UK Onshore Ltd [2010] WL 2898019

• Star Energy drilled three oil wells that passed 800–2,800 feet under Bocardo’s land to reach oil reservoirs.

• Bocardo claimed trespass, arguing ownership of all subsoil beneath its land.

• Supreme Court held: ownership extends beneath the surface and unauthorised drilling is trespass.

Street v Mountford [1985] AC 809 (HL)

• Occupier was paying rent for two rooms, written agreement said 'licence' and could end in 14 days notice

• Landlord went to court insisting it was a lease

• Occupier said she was a tenant since she had exclusive possession

• Held: it was a lease, despite what the document was called. It had 1. exclusive possession, 2. paid rent, 3. fixed and certain set term

AG Securities v Vaughan; Antoniades v Villiers [1990] 1 AC 417

• Landlord owned a four bedroom flat

• Four people each signed separate agreements at different times to live there

• Each person paid rent individually

• Landlord ended all agreements, occupiers claimed they had joint tenancy

• Held: they were licensees, not joint tenants, because they lacked exclusive possession as a group, had separate agreements made at different times

Aslan v Murphy [1990] 1 WLR 766

• Occupier rented a room with a written agreement titled 'license' which said the occupier had no exclusive possession, and that others might be allowed to use the room

• Document also said the landlord kept a key and provided laundry and cleaning services

• In reality, no one else used the room, and no services were provided.

• Held: he was a tenant not a licensee, sham case -> the clauses about shared use and services were pretences

Markou (Crancour) v Da Silvaesa [1986] 18 HLR 265

• Two occupants each rented individual furnished rooms in the same house

• Their agreements were labelled “licences”, not tenancies

• The landlord kept an absolute right of entry at any time and promised to provide services like cleaning, rubbish removal, and laundry

• The occupants claimed they were tenants, arguing they had exclusive possession

• Held: licences, not leases; the landlord’s (genuine) duty to provide regular services meant he and his staff needed unrestricted access to the rooms

Mikeover v Brady [1989] EWCA Civ 1

• Two people rented a small flat and each signed their own agreement, paying half the rent each.

• When one person left, the other only paid his share.

• The landlord said these were licences, not a joint tenancy.

• Held: license, not tenancy -> landlord won

• Four unities

Appah v Parncliffe Investments Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 1064

• Occupant rented a room in a former hotel that had been turned into small rooms for different occupants.

• Owner kept a master key, controlled visitors, and entered monthly to check the gas meter.

• Cleaning was provided, and she could leave without notice.

• Her belongings were stolen, she sued the owner for negligence; owner argued she was a tenant, not a licensee, so they didn’t owe her that duty.

• Held: licensee, not tenant

Abbeyfield Society v Woods [1968] 1 WLR 374

A resident in a residential home for the elderly was held to be a licensee.

Global 100 Ltd v Laleva [2021] EWCA Civ 1835

• NHS owned empty building, hired company to place property guardian

• Occupant was a property guardian, signed a licence agreement saying she was not a tenant and that the purpose was to protect the building

• When asked to leave she refused and claimed she was a tenant

• Held: license, she was not a tenant (purpose)

Norris v Checksfield [1991] 1 WLR 1241

• Mechanic lived in employer's bungalow so he could be a coach driver

• He was disqualified from driving, got dismissed

• Tried to say tenancy

• Held: He occupied under a service occupancy and not a tenancy.

Facchini v Bryson [1952] 1 TLR 1386

• Employer entered into agreement with his assistant which allowed the assistant to occupy a house in return for a weekly rent.

• The terms conferred exclusive possession and the assistant did not occupy the house for the better performance of his duty

• Therefore a service occupancy.

• Held: The agreement created a lease rather than a license.

Cobb v Lane [1952] 1 TLR 1037

• A sister allowed her brother to occupy her house rent free for 13 years.

• Held: no intention to create legal relations = no license,

Heslop v Burns [1974] 3 All ER 406

• Landlord had a crush on the woman (who was married)

• He invited them to stay at his second house for no rent

• He died and they tried to claim possession of the house

• Held: could not infer intention to create legal relations + no agreement or rent = it was a personal license that terminated on his death

Nunn v Dalrymple (1990) 59 P & CR 231   

• Occupant renovated a lodge on an estate owned by his wife’s parents.

• On completion he and his family moved in.

• They had exclusive occupation and paid rent.

• Held: The family connection did not prevent the existence of a tenancy.

Lace v Chantler [1944] KB 368

• A tenant of a house sub-let the house to the defendant. The agreement stated the lease was to last for the duration of the war.

• Held: The tenancy failed as there was no certainty as to the maximum duration.

Pretoria Energy Co v Blankney Estates Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 482

• The parties signed a document titled “Heads of Terms”, setting out basic points for a 25-year lease (site details, rent, etc.)

• The document wasn’t marked “subject to contract”, but it did say a formal contract/lease would be drawn up later.

• One party claimed the document was already a binding contract to grant the lease

• Court held no binding lease: parties intended a later formal contract

• No lease without clear intention and certainty of term.

Prudential Assurance Ltd v London Residuary Body [1992] 2 AC 386

• Land leased “until required for road widening”, duration uncertain.

• Held: Lease void for uncertainty under Lace v Chantler

• Tenant’s possession + rent created a periodic tenancy instead.

• Periodic tenancy valid as either party can end it with notice.

Berrisford v Mexfield Housing Co-operative Ltd [2011] UKSC 52, [2012] 1 AC 955

• Lease “from month to month” but only terminable on limited grounds.

• Held: Not void for uncertainty; created a life tenancy converted to a 90-year lease under s149(6) LPA 1925

• The rule against uncertain term remains due to precedent though criticised.

• Not a periodic tenancy since the landlord could not freely give notice.

Southward Housing Co-Operative Ltd v Walker [2016] EWHC 1615

• D was granted a “weekly tenancy” terminable by notice only on certain grounds.

• After falling into arrears, C served notice to quit; D argued it was a 90-year lease under s149(6) LPA 1925

• Held: it was a contractual licence, not a lease.

• The court found a clear contrary intention to grant a life tenancy; the parties intended a weekly, terminable arrangement.

• Mexfield does not apply where turning the deal into a 90-year lease would contradict the parties’ clear intentions.

Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold [1989] Ch 1.

• Claimant sold lease to company in return for promise to stay rent-free until given one quarter’s notice to leave.

• No fixed end date was given.

• Defendant later sought possession without notice.

• Held: valid lease existed , xclusive possession and notice clause made term sufficiently certain.

• Rent not essential for tenancy; case later overruled on certainty by Prudential Assurance v London Residuary Body.

Bruton v London and Quadrant Housing Trust [1999] 3 All ER 481

• Council licensed flats to a trust; trust had no legal estate.

• C occupied under a licence agreement, claimed lease to trigger s11 LTA 1985.

• Court of Appeal: not a lease; grantor must have legal estate.

• House of Lords: agreement was a lease (Bruton lease) based on exclusive possession.

• Bruton leases enforce rights between parties but do not create a proprietary interest.

Lysaght v Edwards (1876) 2 Ch D 499

• Vendor agreed to sell freehold and copyhold land to the claimants and to enfranchise the copyholds before completion.

• Before doing so, the vendor died, leaving his real estate to trustees on trust for sale.

• The trustees sought clarification on whether they could complete the sale without the heir’s consent.

• Held: A binding land sale contract creates a trust, the vendor held the land on trust for the purchasers, so the trustees could complete the sale without the heir’s permission.

Walsh v Lonsdale (1882) 21 Ch D 9

• Defendant agreed to grant claimant a seven-year lease of a mill without executing a deed.

• Claimant moved in and paid rent quarterly, though lease required a year’s rent in advance if demanded.

• Landlord later demanded a year’s rent in advance; claimant refused.

• Held: Equity treated the agreement as a lease; tenant held under same terms as if a legal lease had been granted.

Baker v Craggs [2016] EWHC 3250

• Part of a farm was sold, including a right of way, but the purchaser’s registration application was delayed and cancelled.

• Before registration, the owners sold another part of the farm to a second buyer, granting a right of way over the same yard.

• The first purchaser had an equitable interest and was in actual occupation, normally protecting it as an overriding interest.

• Held: Sale by the owners as trustees overreached the first purchaser’s equitable interest, the second buyer’s right of way was valid and binding.

Lloyd’s Bank v Rosset [1989] Ch 350 (CA)

Husband bought a house using family trust funds on the condition that it be in his sole name.

Wife helped with building and decorating but made no financial contribution to the purchase or renovation.

After husband defaulted on a loan secured against the property, Bank sought possession.

Held: No common intention or financial contribution was proven, wife had no beneficial interest, and the bank’s claim succeeded.

Link Lending v Bustard [2010] EWCA Civ 424, [2010] 2 EGLR 55

• Fraudster transferred the property and obtained a loan secured by a charge without the true owner’s consent.

• The rightful owner was detained in hospital but made regular visits and intended to return home.

• The lender sought possession after default on the fraudulent loan.

• Held: The owner remained in actual occupation despite involuntary absence, so her overriding interest bound the lender.

City of London Building Society v Flegg [1987] UKHL 6, [1988] AC 54

• Parents contributed half the purchase price of a house bought in their children’s names, all living there together.

• The children later mortgaged the property without consent and defaulted on repayments.

• The parents claimed an overriding interest through contribution and occupation.

• Held: Parents’ equitable interests were overreached by the mortgage, rights transferred to the purchase money, not the property.

State Bank of India v Sood [1996] EWCA Civ 835, [1997] Ch 276

• The legal owners mortgaged the family home, held on trust for themselves and other family members, to secure company debts.

• After defaulting on repayments, the lender sought possession of the property.

• The non-owning family members claimed beneficial interests that should override the bank’s rights.

• Held: Their interests were overreached, the rights attached to the sale proceeds, not the property itself.

Abbey National v Cann [1991] 1 AC 56 (HL)

Mother contributed to the purchase price of a house but moved in only 25 minutes before the property was legally transferred.

The son took out a mortgage on the property, then defaulted.

She claimed an overriding interest due to her contribution and occupation.

Held: Her interest did not override the mortgage, actual occupation requires some permanence, and the move-in so close to completion was insufficient.

Southern Pacific Mortgages v Scott [2014] UKSC 52

• Homeowner sold her house under a sale-and-rent-back scheme, promised a lease to stay and a future payment.

• The buyer funded the purchase with a mortgage, then defaulted; the lender sought possession.

• Homeowner claimed an overriding interest via proprietary estoppel under Land Registration Act 2002.

• Held: No proprietary right existed before completion; the mortgage and transfer formed a single transaction, so the lender’s registered charge took priority, appeal dismissed.