The facts involved concern Bryn Alyn Farm that is presently owned, lawfully, by John Evans. The recent events must be considered to find what still constitutes the farm, whether there are any limitations on it, and whether John is lawfully the exclusive proprietor. The 2nd portion of the paper will concentrate on the differences if the farm consisted of unregistered land and if the farm was in the joint names of John and Aneurin.
Clwyd made an unwritten understanding to buy a field for ?2000 in 1999. Although the money has been paid and business commenced, there had ne’er been any written understanding, nor has any official title for the chap been completed. This means that under the Law of Property Act ( 1925 ) subdivision 52 the sale of land is non lawfully adhering as unwritten understandings are non recognised. It could non even be viewed as an informal rental after the passing of the Law of Property ( Miscellaneous Provisions ) Act 1989 which requires composing even for these rentals. As there has been no enrollment of rubric, the legal proprietor of the field remains John and as such he is able to sell the land to a new buyer.
Xian has purchased a right of transition over the farm land. The issue here is whether or non John has efficaciously granted Sian an easement over his servient land, in this instance wherever on the farm the right extended to. Smith lists “rights of way” among the most common of easements [ 1 ] . Although the demands for the preparation of an easement are obscure, there is counsel in Re. Ellenborough Park [ 2 ] ; this instance requires the being of a dominant and servient tenement, the service of the latter, a difference in individuality of the proprietor of the dominant ad servient tenement, and it must be capable of “forming the capable affair of a grant” [ 3 ] .
Sing the first two of these standards, it could be argued that the right of manner is needed to exert the Equus caballuss and as such does non profit the land itself. The important trial to deduce from Moody 5 Steggles [ 4 ] is whether or non the easement affects the land itself. It can be argued that it would be irrelevant for person who did non ain Equus caballuss as there would be no demand for the rights. More persuasive is to follow the original instance of Re, Ellenborough Park and view the right of manner as a natural add-on to a rural belongings. It is likely that this would be satisfactory to the tribunal. Likewise the 4th of the standards is improbable to present a job as a right of manner has long been held to be sufficiently clearly defined.
Substantively so, it appears that there exists the possibility of an easement. Because an easement is an involvement in land there is a demand that it be created by title ( to be a legal involvement ) or by composing ( to be an just involvement ) . Although Sian has called the papers a title, it appears to be merely signed by the two persons who are party to the understanding. Under the Law of Property Act ( Miscellaneous Provisions ) [ 5 ] a title must besides be witnessed. It is likely therefore that the easement created will be just in nature merely. The trouble with this state of affairs is that it will non adhere a buyer of the land as there has been no enrollment of the temperament under Schedule 1 paragraph 3 of the Land Registration Act [ 6 ] .
Megan has paid money to John since 2005 for the business of a barn as a studio. The possible involvements that Megan has are as a leaseholder or as a licencee ( in add-on to the possibility of holding no rights ) . The primary indicants are that the understanding is sufficiently certain to be a rental. Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold [ 7 ] requires a certain beginning and terminal day of the month ; this is stated to be three old ages. Rent is collectible although this is non required. Although there has been argument about the necessity of sole ownership it is clear that she is in sole ownership of the belongings.
The trouble though is that the needed formalities have non been complied with. As respects John this is non an obstruction as the jurisprudence will recognize an just rental. However, this will non assist her against a buyer as, unlike a legal rental, an just rental does non represent an paramount involvement. It would hence be unenforceable against a buyer. It would hence look that Megan has an just rental for three old ages get downing in 2005 and ending in 2008.
Sara ( John’s married woman ) contributed 20 % of the purchase monetary value but is non registered as a joint proprietor. The inquiry is whether she has any rights at all over the belongings. As a affair of jurisprudence, the formalities of the rubric deeds dictate that there is no such involvement ; equity on the other manus has traditionally been less demanding and it is possible that John a proportion of the involvement on trust for his married woman. In 1788 the tribunal held in Dyer v Dyer [ 8 ] that when A provides an sum of money for the purchase of belongings, but that B is the lone single registered on the title, so B will keep the rubric in trust for A.
The statement that such an duty would be owed merely in morality was disposed of in Sekhon V Alissa [ 9 ] . Because of an asymmetric development in the jurisprudence it remains a given of a trust when a married woman passes money to her hubby, and unless grounds can be adduced to show that it was intended as a gift, Sara will hold an involvement in the returns of the sale. This should be registered on the register charge under the Family Law Act ( 1996 ) and will look on any HRR hunt performed by a possible buyer. For a buyer this will supply troubles merely if she should object to the sale, every bit long as she consents she will be able to claim her proportion of the money from John.
The concluding inquiry is how the above replies would be altered if the belongings was owned by both John and his brother, and if the land was unregistered.
Taking the absence of enrollment foremost, the get downing point in such an unusual state of affairs would be that a “proprietary involvement will adhere any subsequent purchaser” [ 10 ] . This philosophy was clouded over clip by the philosophy of notice which meant that the buyer would be bound by the right merely if there was existent or constructive notice of the rights. It is besides the instance that merely legal rights would be affected by this as was determined in the instance of Phillips v Phillips [ 11 ] . Thus all of the involvements above that depend on equity, notably Megan and Sian will necessitate existent notice before being bound. Because of the informality of the sale, the Clwyd issue will be unaffected.
The lone issue that would stay is that of Sara. Were she still present on the belongings so there would be no trouble as any sensible hunt would find her being. Having moved out of the belongings her involvement would non be automatic and the likeliness would be that the buyer would non be bound by her involvement. She would though hold a right against John to overreach the sale and claim out of the returns that money which is owed to her.
Finally, the state of affairs if the belongings was owned by John and Aneurin. The state of affairs with co-ownership in England and Wales is that either a occupancy in common or a joint occupancy must hold been created. For the limited intents of this inquiry it is irrelevant which has been created. The relevant statute law is the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act [ 12 ] . John and Aneurin will be the legal guardians for themselves and each other. The simple consequence is that Aneurin could hold objected to any of the estates that were created above and if so the involvement would be taken entirely from John’s involvement in the land.
Were Aneurin to object to a sale so subdivision 14 of the 1996 Act gives the tribunal a broad discretion to govern on the affair and either order a sale or forestall a sale.
In decision it is likely that all of the persons apart from Clwyd will hold been granted a peculiar of involvement, albeit that they are all just in their nature. Were the land to be unregistered merely legal involvements would be adhering and Aneurin’s co-ownership would potentially take the tribunal to step in under the 1996 act.
Gray & A ; Gray‘Elements of Land Law’
Published by Oxford Press
Smith R‘Property Law’
Published by PearsonLongman
Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold [ 1981 ] Ch 1
Dyer V Dyer ( 1788 ) 2 Cox 92 ( 30 ER 42 )
Re. Ellenborough Park [ 1956 ] Ch 131
Moody 5 Steggles ( 1879 ) 12 Ch D 261
Phillips V Phillips ( 1861 ) 4 De GF & A ; J 208
Sekhon V Alissa [ 1989 ] 2 FLR 94