Property Cases

Pye v Graham

key principles for adverse possession: requiremets of factual possession and intetnion to possess

Colonial Bank v Whinney

personal property is categorised as either choses in possession or choses in action

Torkington v Magee

defines ‘choses in action’ as personal property rights enforceable by action rather than physical possession

Elitestone v Morris

bungalow considered land rather than a chattel as could not be moved wihtout fully dismantling it

Holland v Hodgson

mill looms bolted to the floor deemed to be fixtures because their attachment was to improve the lands utility - degree and purpose of annextion test

Chelsea Yacht and Boat Co v Pope

houseboat considered to be a chattel as had a lower degree of annexation as could be untied and moved down the bank

Link Lending v Bustard

establishes factors courts will consider when determining actual occupation —> person can remain in actual occupation if they are physically absent for a prolonged period and they have intention to return

Thomas v Clydesdale Bank plc

actual occupation must be obvious on reasonably careful inspection of the land

Chhokar v Chhokar

temporary absence with an intention to return does not negate actual occupation

Street v Moundford

for a lease:

1. exclusive possession

2. fixed term

3. rent

Re Ellenborough Park

lays out criteria for a valid easement

1. must be a dominant and servient tenement

2. dominant must benefit

3. cannot have the same owner

4. must be capable of being the subject matter of a grant

Tulk v Moxhay

lays out 4 requirements about the role of equity in freehold covenants

1. must be restrictive

2. must accomodate the dominant land

3. original parties must have intention to burden to pass (automatically assumer under s.79 LPA)

4. purhcaser of the servient land must have notice of the covenant

Milroy v Lord

equity will not perfect an imperfect gift

3 ways to transfer

1. gift/sale

2. self declaration as a trustee

3. third party trust

Glastier-Carlisle v Glastier-Carlisle

relevant intention is of the donor

Re Cole

actual delivery case

words are insufficient for actual delivery

Thomas v Times Book Co Ltd

constructive delivery

transfer is complete where there is a clear intention and donee is put in a position where they can take the property

Lock v Heath

symbolic delivery

handing over inventory and receipt of furniture

Strong v Bird

where the donor maintained an intention until death and the donee is appointed as executor, the gift will be fotuiously completed

Re Ralli’s Will Trusts

extends strong v bird to trust property

Jones v Lock

equity will not perfect an imperfect gift - informal spoken intentions are not binding as trusts or gifts

Re Rose

every effort rule - where donee has done everything in their power to compelte the transaction it is compelte in equity

Mascall v Mascall

applied re rose to land

Curtis v Pulbrook

established exceptions to equity will not perfect an imperfect gift

1. every effort (re rose)

2. unconscionable (pennington)

3. benevolent contrusction of words used - gift or self declaration of trust

T. Choithram Int. SA v Pagarani

Walsh v Lonsdale

where the formalities fail in a lease with a valid estate contract, equity will treat the lease as complete

Englewood Properties v Patel

vendor must take reasonable care of the land

Scott v South Pacific Mortgages

purchaser with a equitable interest can not pass on the propreitary interest until they are fregistered as the owner

Paul v Constance

a trust can be made orally

Knight v Knight

established 3 certainties

1. intention

2. subject matter

3. object

Re Adams and the Kensington Vestry

no need to use the word trust but language should impose intension - “in full confidence was too vague”

re kayford

intention was shown through the conduct of having a separate bank account

• company was a mail order catalog business (pay first and deliver later) - company started to face financial difficulties - may take customer money for goods and be unable to deliver (liquidation + insolvency) - opened a separate bank account ‘customer trust deposit account’

Sprange v Barnard

“what he doesn’t want for his own want’ - no certainty of subject matter

Re London Wine Co Ltd

for a valid trust to exist over tangible assets, the specific goods must be physically segregated or otherwise uniquely identified from a larger bulk; otherwise the trust fails for lack of certainty of subject matter 

Hunter v Moss

valid trust for intagible assets wihtout the need to segregate or specifically identify exact units

IRC v Broadway Cottages

establishes complete list test