Summary GDL Land law distinction level revision notes
10 views 0 purchase
Course
GDL
Institution
GDL
These are the revision notes which I produced to sit the GDL land law exam (at Oxford Brookes) in 2021/22, in which I gained a distinction both in this paper and overall. I previously achieved a First in PPE at Oxford.
The notes run to 65 pages and 22k words, covering in full detail the followin...
Intro to Land Law
What is land?
s.205 (1)(ix) LPA 1925: Land includes: land of any tenure, and mines and minerals, buildings,
hereditaments, intangible aspects, like rights of way, privileges.
Why is it special?
o Permanent
o Limited supply
o Each piece is unique
o All pieces are in some sense connected to others
o Enormous social and economic importance
o Land can support multiple simultaneous interests
The Numerus Clausus principle:
The number of proprietary interests that can exist is limited, and the definition of such
interests can be constrained/defined narrowly (i.e. they are the ones that the law defines,
and not any others).
The two kinds of estates:
o Freehold – you own it for as long as you live, and then it goes to your heirs
o Leasehold – you possess it for a finite number of years.
Outside of these two estates, all other interests take effect as equitable interests, and
operate in equity.
Legal ownership and rights in rem
Land law concerns rights in rem.
s.23 LRA 2003 states the owner’s powers in relation to a registered estate:
o to make a disposition of any kind permitted by the general law in relation to an
interest of that description:
convey the estate
grant lesser estates/interests (where permitted)
The owner of a legal estate has rights in rem
o They are entitled to proprietary remedies, such as a possession order, an injunction
This contrasts with rights in personam, where the remedies involve compensation rather
than being placed in the position you would have been in without a breach.
Legal vs equitable title
Those with legal title have the powers of the absolute owner, whereas those with equitable
title have beneficial entitlement, but no powers of absolute ownership.
Legal title is restricted to 4 grantees, though more can have equitable title
Legal title is blunt – we might want the two legal owners to have different levels of equity in
the property.
Legal title is in name, whereas beneficial ownership/equitable title can be hidden
When are rights legal?
o When they are both capable of being legal (fall into the list set out in LPA 1925) and
requisite formalities have been completed.
, Land Law Tom Barnes
Differences between personal and real property
In land, you do not own land outright, rather you own a title to that land. On the other hand,
you have absolute dominion over personal possessions like a phone.
o You hold land from the Crown, and if you die without a will or heirs, then it reverts
to the Crown.
There are different regulation requirements for land – you have to register it at the Land
Registry, whereas there is no such requirement for most personal property.
Personal/proprietary rights
Personal rights bind only the parties who created the rights, whereas proprietary rights are
enforceable against third parties.
For example if A grants a personal right to B, but then A sells their land to C, then B’s right is
not binding on C. However if they were granted a proprietary right (e.g. a lease), then it is.
National Provincial Bank v Ainsworth (1965)
o In ruling that a wife’s right to live in a property that was being repossessed was
personal and not proprietary, Lord Wilberforce offered the fairly circular test that a
right is proprietary when it is identifiable and assumable by third parties (which is
just what a proprietary right is…).
Estates in land
Freehold estates
Closest thing to absolute possession
The freeholder can use the land for the duration of their lifetime, and can transfer it to
others. This is not conditional on anything.
Leasehold estates
The person holding the lease is entitled to use the land for a certain period of time, and can
assign the leasehold to a third party.
Interests in land
Interests in land are property rights which do not confer any rights of ownership. Examples include
mortgages, rights of way, restrictive covenants. Interests are proprietary.
Fixtures and Chattels
s.62 LPA 1925
Implies terms into conveyance, unless there is express contrary intention.
Title to fixtures automatically transfers to the purchaser
Title to chattels/personal property do not.
Disputes involve disagreement over whether something is chattel/fixture.
Holland v Hodgson (1872) – the importance of fixing something down
The mill owner nailed looms to wooden beams, easily removable.
The mill owner defaulted on his mortgage, and so the lender sought to repossess the
property, including the looms.
, Land Law Tom Barnes
Blackburn J: an article fixed even slightly shall be considered as part of the land, unless the
circumstances show it was intended all along to be a chattel.
Blackburn J ruled in favour of the lender, that the looms were fixtures, since they were not
intended to be a chattel, rather were installed as an improvement to the property.
Elitestone v Morris (1997) – even if fixed down, we must consider both the degree and purpose of
annexation.
A Freeholder sought to evict a tenant who lived in a chalet which lay on concrete blocks,
and hence was not attached to the ground.
The tenant argued they were protected by the Rent Act 1977, but this only applied if it was
a ‘dwelling house’, as opposed to a chattel, like a caravan.
Lord Lloyd: if it not removable without destroying it, then it cannot have been intended to
remain as a chattel.
Leigh v Taylor (1902) – the purpose of annexation is more important
Tapestries in a home were attached to a board and nailed to the wall.
The tenant died, so the lease reverted to the freeholder, who wanted to get the tapestries
too.
Earl of Harlbury LC: the purpose of annexation in this case was for better enjoyment of the
tapestries (and hence to remain as chattel), rather than for the lasting improvement of the
property.
Botham v TSB Bank (1996) – the importance of how easily removable an item is
Borrower defaulted on mortgage, but before repossession took place, Botham removed all
the items in the flat. Were these items chattels?
Roch LJ: if the item is intended to be permanent and to afford a lasting improvement to the
building, then it is a fixture.
Some considerations
o If ornamental, this indicates a chattel
o If can be removed without damage, this indicates a chattel
o If has a limited lifespan, this indicates a chattel
o If installed by the landowner/a contractor (as opposed to builder), this indicates a
chattel.
D’Eyncourt v Gregory (1866) – the importance of the role an item plays in the style of the property
Under a will, a testator left their heirlooms and the estate to two different people. The
beneficiary of the estate was entitled to the fixtures, and the other the chattels.
Romily MR: what matters is not whether something is fixed down by concrete, but rather
whether an item is part of the architectural design of the estate, or whether they are mere
ornaments to be added later
Also Whaley (1908) – portrait in an Elizabethan style room was a fixture based on same
principle
LB Tower Hamlets v LB Bromley (2015) – application of D’Eyncourt and Elitestone
There was a Henry Moore statue outside some offices, and it was ruled that the statue, since
it was not part of the architectural style, and was movable, was a chattel.
, Land Law Tom Barnes
Berkley v Poulett (1977)
The question was whether items like paintings set into oak panelling, a sundial, and a marble
statue resting on a solid plinth, were fixtures or chattels.
It was ruled that they were chattels: even with a high degree of physical annexation, since
the purpose of annexation was better enjoyment of the items, they were still fixtures. Lord
Scarman also pointed out that something could be a fixture even if not physically annexed, if
it was so heavy as to simply not require annexation, and the purpose of installation was to
improve the land.
Principles we can draw
Physical annexation is not the conclusive factor
We have to consider whether the annexation was for the purpose of better enjoyment of
the land or the item
Removing fixtures
The landowner has the absolute right to remove a fixture and return its status to that of a chattel.
During a lease, the tenant has the right to remove fixtures which they themselves have installed, but
when a tenant-landlord relationship comes to an end, at the common law the starting point is that
the fixtures at that point in time belong to the landlord, but there are some exceptions.
Notably, the tenant may remove ornamental/domestic fixtures which they installed, and
which can be removed without causing irreparable damage (they are liable for any damage).
This comes from Spyer v Phillipson (1931).
Limitations on ownership
Airspace
Bernstein v Skyviews (1978) you only have rights to such a height as is necessary for the
‘ordinary use and enjoyment’ of the land. In Civil Aviation Act 1982 s.76: lower stratum
unlikely to extend beyond 500-1000ft
Surface
Parker v British Airways Board (1982) objects on the surface may belong to the finder, unless
constitutes trespass, or occupier demonstrates manifest intention to control.
Subterranean
You own the subsoil beneath your land. You also own man-made spaces below your land
even if they have been created by another party and you are unable to access them.
While at the common law you own the ‘mines and minerals’ within your land, any fossil fuels
or gold/silver belong to the Crown by statute.
Items found on land
Item-true owner disputes – the true owner can come forwards and claim it, as in Moffatt v
Kazana (1969).
Finder-occupier disputes – the occupier has to show that they exercised sufficient control
over the item, and that they demonstrated an intention to demonstrate this control. In
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller tombarnes. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $24.77. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
