Horace And Phyllida Case Study

The proprietary right is protected by overriding interest under Section 70(1)(f) of Land Registration Act 1925 (LRA1925). Limitation Act 1980 stated requirement towards the squatter where he is in factual possession to the land for a period of 12 years continuously and is not objected by the land owner, he will obtain a title towards the land. However, Land Registration Act 2002 (LRA 2002) brings changes towards this proprietary right where it provides a new set of rules which

In his article ‘Equitable Rights of Cohabitees’ Hayton suggested that the distinction between common intention constructive trusts and proprietary estoppel has, over time, come to be but illusory and goes on further to propose that since the general direction of the development of the law has been to embrace the principle of preventing and remedying unconscionable conduct regardless of whether the claim brought before them was originally brought under the concept of a constructive trust or proprietary

• Whether the transfer of chattels and other personal property attached to the land were not fixtures under the general law definition.

One of the claims in this proceeding is the BEP Blue Gum Project which was formerly owned by Euan Pescott, brother to Roger Pescott. In 1999, Euan Pescott and BEP Management Pty Ltd entered into an agreement that requires BEP to establish and manage a eucalyptus plantation on the land provided by Euan Pescott. As a result, Euan Pescott had made a total payment of $ 1,076,253.46 to BEP throughout the years. In 2007, the directors of Environinvest decided to purchase the project by creating a document which is alleged to bear the false date of 1st July 1999. It acts as a false documentation of purchase, and with that Euan Pescott transferred the plantation to S.T.Y.A with the total amount

This decision can be clearly identified within Ansbacher Trustees Ltd, where it was stated that it would “be a highly unsatisfactory situation if such beneficiaries were held not to have standing to sue the trustees for breach of trust”. These powers are of obvious importance to objects, who may need to draw upon these remedies, in instances where settlements have been created, for example, to avoid tax, such as what can be seen in the Vandervell case, or in The Exeter Settlement where it was mentioned “the power to add and delete beneficiaries from the class of potential objects of a discretionary trust originated from the need to obtain “maximum flexibility” in, for example tax planning strategies”. These types of trusts are thus set up to provide more secrecy for the settlor; however they are vulnerable to being

In the case of Gagnon v. Coombs, Joan Coombs did not have the right to convey the Shelburne farm to a trust that Joan herself established. Joan was the agent and Francis Gagnon was the principal in this case. At the time when Joan transferred the property to the trust she was no longer an agent but was unaware. Even though Joan thought she was still an agent she did go against the duties of an agent, thus not giving her the right to move the property to a trust.

The landowner is allowed to receive “just compensation” for their property, meaning the landowner is paid for the taking of their real

“On application, the court may appoint the Public Trustee to act as a guardian for adults who are incapable of taking

He pointed out that a trust should not be dependent on this distinction and that a trustee should look for beneficiaries in order to fulfill their fiduciary duty under the trust. In his opinion, Lord Wilberforce, noted that a discretionary trust is a trust and the trustee must identify beneficiaries. He continued that where a trust was made for the benefit of a group, the complete list test will not be appropriate in establishing certainty of objects. The list of beneficiaries in a discretionary trust cannot be completed and the trustee is, therefore, not required to provide equal benefits for all beneficiaries. In his view, the most appropriate test would be to inquire whether an individual is or is not a member of a beneficial

This essay will discuss the Supreme Court decision in FHR European Ventures LLP and others v Cedar Capital Partners LLC (Cedar) . The issue in this case was whether a bribe or secret commission accepted by an agent is held on constructive trust for his principal. This topic is a “relentless and seemingly endless debate” , as Sir Terence Etherton described, and that the “remedy awarded has vacillated for the last 200-odd years” . The major reason for the debate is because the principal will have propriety claim as opposed to a mere equitable compensation, if the bribe or commission is held on a constructive trust . The principal will be in a much more advantageous position if he was held to have propriety

Being one of the most extensive law reforms of the Law Commission, Land Registration Act 2002 aims to create a flawless legal framework for land registration, especially in terms of conveyancing with emphasis on overriding interests and adverse possession. It is agreed that the Land Registration Act 2002 (hereafter LRA 2002), by putting emphasis on strict registration, moved the idea of land ownership from ownership by possession to bureaucratization of title via registration. Therefore, LRA 2002 is said to bring further strictness and clarity to land ownership and subsequent conveyancing. In conjunction, LRA 2002 was expected to bring an “e-conveyancing revolution” to land registration which was awaited to be a major success. Although steps are taken towards this development, it is claimed that there is still long way to go before a complete and problem-free e-conveyancing system. Apart from matters relating to conveyancing, LRA 2002 consists of sections regarding overriding interests where their number and scope are widely reduced with specifications of registration introduced. Moreover, the Act includes strictly drafted provisions about adverse possession, aiming to bring further restrictions to this matter by bringing further difficulties to the acquisition of title and therefore shifting from a squatter prone approach to a registered owner supporting view.

The fundamental issue in the case of Alfie and Peggy is whether the items in question are a part of the land (fixtures) that can be acquired by Alfie in the convenyancing process, or whether they are an item of personal property (chattels) that belong in the hands of the seller Peggy . According to the Latin maxim ‘quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedid’# , Alfie can claim ownership rights to the items in question, if they are attached to the soil of the land. In other words, the items must all be fixtures rather than chattels, for Alfie to seek ownership.

The general rule on constitution of trusts is ‘equity will not assist a volunteer to perfect an imperfect trust’. It is apparent that subsequent case law has sought to depart from such principle by introducing various exceptions which allow incomplete gifts to be perfected. Nevertheless, there has been many criticism and debate in regards to this area of the law since it is felt on the one hand, that the scope is for exceptions is being widened too far, whilst it is argued on the other that it will be unconscionable to the parties for the gift not to be perfected. Nonetheless, the exceptions is inevitable will continue to advance and thus create a topic for criticisms and debate.

The Land Registration Act (LRA) 1925 has drawn much flak over the years with regards to one of its most important provisions on overriding interests (OI), which often goes unnoticed until it swoops up and takes priority over the rights of a future purchaser. These interests often come in the form of other occupiers in the property with an equitable interest and, like in the case of Boland , this leaves the lender in a tight spot when they find out about the existence of these interests only after they have initiate proceedings for possession against the defaulting borrowers. Due to the other occupier’s concealed nature on the property register, the lenders have regained their footing by applying the concept of overreaching and ….. The Law Commission, on the other hand, contemplated abolishing these interest altogether but did not go to that extent because it was neither feasible nor desirable Instead, they shrank their impact on land by reforming the operation and scope of the OI. With LRA 2002 sch 3 para 2, lenders now have more control over what may bite them. …. This essay will access…. with a focus on how the lending world have dealt with the implications of Boland…. The best way to access the impact of … would be to go through the pre – post blabla to show how the thing has balanced.

The modern trust law has its origin in the use (from the Latin ab apus) which was developed as the response of equity to the shortcomings of the common law. A trust is very difficult if not impossible to define, but its essential elements are reasonably easily described and readily understood. There is no statutory definition of a trust . It has been the courts that, over the years, have developed the rules relating to the trust, so all one can do is provide a description of the trust, which reflects those rules and which enables people in a general way to know what is meant when talking about a trust. This essay will consider the case of Re Baden No.2 and explain how the trust principles evolved and develop relating to the certainty of objects. This essay will also analyse the different tests the Law Lords set out in relation to certainty of objects, for a discretionary trust. We will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each approach from the Law Lords and suggest the best way forward for the trustees when deciding the proper approach to take in a discretionary trust.