Archive for the 'Trusts and Estoppel' Category

Equity Release Schemes: the CA view

By Dave on 26/01/2012. 6 Comments

Cook v The Mortgage Business PLC et al [2012] EWCA Civ 17

[note for law students: this is a really important case on land registration in which the principles in Abbey National BS v Cann are considered and applied.  Please note that we do not write essays for you or respond to queries which assist you in writing your essays - we get quite snippy about such enquiries so beware.  As an academic and property law teacher myself, I get quite irate with those enquiries.  However, if you want to engage with us and our writing, we would be really happy and will respond in kind.]

Every generation seems to … Read the full post

Posted in FLW case note, Housing law - All, Licences and occupiers, Mortgage possession and Trusts and Estoppel. Tags: , .

Estoppel and s.2 – will we find out?

By Francis Davey on 23/12/2011. 0 Comments

In the Summer Dave and David Smith posted about the case of Kinnear v Whittaker in the High Court. Bean J allowed an appeal against the summary disposal of a possession claim where the defendant had raised proprietary estoppel as a defence. This interesting and important question about the interaction between estoppel and s.2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 was therefore put off until trial.

The claimants appear to have been too excited to wait until then (or, more likely, but less poetically, they wanted to avoid the expense of a trial) and so appealed to the Court of Appeal. On Wednesday Stanley Burnton LJ refused … Read the full post

Posted in FLW case note, Mortgage possession, Possession, Trusts and Estoppel and Uncategorized. Tags: , , , , , .

Land Registration and its circumvention

By Dave on 05/12/2011. 1 Comment

Chaudhary v Yavuz [2011] EWCA Civ 1314

It is a basic principle of land registration, reinforced by the Land Registration Act 2002, that the holder of an adverse interest to a title should protect that interest by entering a notice on the register (unless they are unable to do so, for example because their interest is excluded).  Failure to do so means that the holder of the adverse interest is forced to fall back on the capriciousness of overriding interests, which do not appear on the register but bind the buyer.  This category was much reduced by the 2002 Act (on the basis of that formal protection principle).  Or the … Read the full post

Posted in FLW case note, Housing law - All and Trusts and Estoppel. Tags: , .

Jones v Kernott: Ending the big debate?

By Dave on 09/11/2011. 80 Comments

One of the things I really don’t like about academics is the way they sit in their offices with their heads so full of doctrinal legal theory that they forget (if they ever knew) about the ways real people lead their lives.  What got me through land law as a student was Gray and Symes’ textbook, Real Property and Real People.  The great thing about the re-invention of the constructive trust in the 1960s was that it seemed to provide a sufficiently malleable tool to connect real property and real people.  So what if it was improper or that, properly, the approach should be the strict presumed resulting trust … Read the full post

Posted in FLW case note, Housing law - All and Trusts and Estoppel. Tags: .

Jones v Kernott: The Headline

By Dave on 09/11/2011. 0 Comments

I’ve got parental duty so can’t do a full note on Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53 now.  The headlines, though, are:

(a) Ms Jones won the appeal so that her 90% share in the disputed property was re-instated;

(b) the UKSC agree on the outcome but there is disagreement on the principles (esp Lord Wilson with Lord Kerr somewhere between);

(c) the majority, in essence, follow Stack but, it might be said, with a slight change of emphasis or, more politely, with more explanation about inferring/imputing shares;

(d) Lord Walker and Baroness Hale, who gave a joint judgment, engage with academic commentary on Stack.  The key paragraph in … Read the full post

Posted in Housing law - All, Trusts and Estoppel and Uncategorized.

Trial Separation

By Francis Davey on 08/10/2011. 1 Comment

Quigley v Masterson [2011] EWHC 2529 (Ch) raises an interesting point about the severance of a beneficial joint tenancy.

The background is sadly familiar. The late Mr Pilkington formed a relationship with Mrs Masterson. They lived together in a house as joint legal and beneficial tenants. Their relationship broke down and Mrs Masterson (together with a daughter from a previous marriage) moved out.

Since he was 16 years senior to Mrs Masterson, it is not surprising that it was his (or his legal advisor’s) mind that first turned to severance of the joint tenancy. His solicitors attempted to do so by notice under that section familiar to all law students: … Read the full post

Posted in FLW case note, Housing law - All and Trusts and Estoppel. Tags: , .

Rolling Back the Years: Estoppel and s.2

By David Smith on 19/06/2011. 1 Comment

[Edit NL 21/6/2011. Owing to some enthusiasm by contributors and an evening off editing by me, we have two reports on this case done on the same evening. I've kept both because they present interestingly different approaches to the issues in this case, but I've combined them. First, strictly temporally, is David Smith's version, followed by Dave's]

Whittaker v Kinnear [2011] EWHC 1479 (QB)

This case raises some interesting questions about estoppel and sale.

K sold her property and it’s grounds to W and his business associate, Mr Nichols in 2007, apparently because she could no longer afford it. This sale was at an undervalue and it was intended that … Read the full post

Posted in FLW case note, Housing law - All and Trusts and Estoppel.
row of sheds footer image
6 pages