Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vpsfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T12:40:42.724Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The informal creation of interests in land

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Mark Howard  and
Jonathan Hill
Mark Howard
Affiliation:
University of Bristol
Jonathan Hill
Affiliation:
University of Bristol
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is a general principle that interests in property are transferred consensually. Of course, the law may provide that in certain circumstances property may be expropriated by the state or that a person's property should be transferred to another independently of the owner's will; for example, when a person becomes bankrupt his assets vest automatically in the trustee in bankruptcy. Nevertheless, dealings between individuals with regard to property are premised on the notion that property entitlements are transferred by consensual arrangements. A sale, for example, requires the agreement of the buyer and the seller. The position with regard to gifts is slightly more difficult because English law does not require any actual acceptance by the donee. However, as Lawson and Rudden point out, ‘since [the donee] is at liberty to refuse the gift, from his failure to do so it may be presumed that he is willing to acquire the property in question.’

Type
Research Article
Information
Legal Studies , Volume 15 , Issue 3 , November 1995 , pp. 356 - 375
Copyright
Copyright © Society of Legal Scholars 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. The Law of Property (2nd edn, 1982) pp 65–66.

2. Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, s 1.

3. See Land Registration Act 1925, ss 2, 19, 22, 106, 123.

4. (1882) 21 Ch D 9.

5. Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, s 2.

6. United Bank of Kuwait v Sahib [1995] 2 WLR 94.

7. Law of Property Act 1925, s 53(1)(b).

8. Law of Property Act 1925, s 53(1)(c). The general formality rules contained in section 53(1) do not apply to the creation and operation of implied, resulting and constructive trusts: Law of Property Act 1925, s 53(2).

9. See Fuller ‘Consideration and Form’ (1941) 41 Col L Rev 799; Law Commission Transfer of Land: Formalities for Contracts of Sale, etc of Land (Law Com No 164) (1987) pp 5–8 (paras 2.1–2.21).

10. McPhail v Persons (Names Unknown) [1973] Ch 447.

11. For completeness it should also be mentioned that a legal lease can be created by parol if it takes effect in possession for a term not exceeding three years and is at the best rent reasonably obtainable without taking a fine: Law of Property Act 1925, s 54(2).

12. Lush J in Angus & Co v Dalton (1877) 3 QBD 85, 94.

13. Fox LJ in Simmons v Dobson [1991] 1 WLR 720, 723.

14. Angus & Co v Dalton (1878) 4 QBD 162; Tehidy Minerals Ltd v Norman [1971] 2 QB 528.

15. Limitation Act 1980, s 17.

16. Land Registration Act 1925, s 75.

17. Re Nisbir & Potts' Contract [1906] 1 Ch 386.

18. It has been suggested that the law should be reformed and should recognise the acquisition of title to land by prescription: Jackson ‘The Legal Effects of the Passing of Time’ (1970) 7 MULR 407.

19. See, for example, Dillwyn v Llewelyn (1862) 4 DeGF & J 517.

20. [1992] 1 WLR 113.

21. Lord Bridge in Lloyds Bank v Rosset [1991] 1 AC 107, 132.

22. These different expressions are often used interchangeably in the cases. In the context of the present discussion, however, the distinctions drawn in the text are significant.

23. [1979] 1 WLR 431.

24. Cumming-Bruce LJ [1979] 1 WLR 431, 434.

25. [1987] 2 EGLR 67.

26. [1967] 2 QB 379.

27. [1979] Ch 291.

28. [1976] Ch 179.

29. Gissing v Gissing [1971] AC 886.

30. Burns v Burns [1984] Ch 317.

31. Coombes v Smith [1986] 1 WLR 808.

32. Griffiths v Williams (1977) 248 EG 947; Re Basham [1986] 1 WLR 1498.

33. Gissing v Gissing [1971] AC 886.

34. See Mustill LJ in Grant v Edwards [1986] Ch 638, 652.

35. Lord Bridge in Lloyds Bank v Rosset [1991] 1 AC 107, 132.

36. Ibid.

37. [1986] Ch 638.

38. Ibid at 647.

39. [1990] 1 Ch 206.

40. Vinelott J [1990] 1 Ch 206, 223.

41. [1991] 1 WLR 1127.

42. [1991] AC 107.

43. Ibid at 131.

44. [1986] Ch 638.

45. [1986] Ch 638, 652.

46. See Hayton & Underhill The Law Relating to Trusts and Trustees (14th edn, 1989) p 335.

47. [1971] AC 886.

48. Ibid at 906.

49. See Lord Diplock in Gissing v Gissing [1971] AC 886, 904.

50. See Waller LJ in Burns v Burns [1984] Ch 317, 326 and Mustill LJ in Grant v Edwards [1986] Ch 638, 652. See also Montgomery ‘A Question of Intention?’ [1987] Conv 16, 26. Cf Eeklaar ‘A Woman's Place-A Conflict Between Law and Social Values’ [1987] Conv 93; Gardner ‘Rethinking Family Property’ (1993) 109 LQR 263.

51. [1991] AC 107.

52. Fox LJ in Burns v Burns [1984] Ch 317, 328. See also Lord Diplock in Gissing v Gissing [1971] AC 886, 909 and Hayton ‘Equitable Rights of Cohabitees’ [1990] Conv 370, 377 n 33.

53. See Snell's Equity (29th edn, 1990) pp 178–182.

54. [1984] Ch 317.

55. (1862) 4 DeGF & J 517.

56. [1979] Ch 291.

57. (1977) 248 EG 947.

58. [1986] 1 WLR 1498.

59. [1980] 1 WLR 1306.

60. See the judgment of Lord Denning MR: [1980] 1 WLR 1306, 1310.

61. [1965] 2 QB 29.

62. See Moriarty ‘Licences and Land Law: Legal Principles and Public Policies’ (1984) 100 LQR 376.

63. Oliver J uses the phrase ‘passive or active encouragement’ in Taylor Fashions v Liverpool Victoria Trustees [1982] 1 QB 133n, 148.

64. (1866) LR 1 HL 129.

65. (1866) LR 1 HL 129, 140–141. See also the speech of Lord Wensleydale (1866) LR 1 HL 129, 168 and the judgment of Fry J in Willmott v Barber (1880) 15 Ch D 96, 105–106.

66. See, for example, Lord Diplock in Kammins Ballrooms Co Ltd v Zenith Investments (Torquay) Ltd [1971] AC 850, 884 and Oliver J in Taylor Fashions v Liverpool Victoria Trustees [1982] 1 QB 133n, 147.

67. Greasley v Cook [1980] 1 WLR 1306, Wayling v Jones (1993) 69 P&CR 170; Durant v Heritage [1994] EGCS 134.

68. See, for example, Inwards v Baker [1965] 2 QB 29 and Dodsworth v Dodsworth (1973) 228 EG 1115.

69. As in Pascoe v Turner [1979] 1 WLR 431.

70. [1986] 1 WLR 1498.

71. [1986] 1 WLR 1498, 1505. See also Matharu v Matharu (1994) 26 HLR 648.

72. [1986] 1 WLR 808.

73. (1866) LR 1 HL 129.

74. (1880) 15 Ch D 96, 105.

75. The alternative theory is that the doctrine of prescription is based upon utility rather than acquiescence: Lord Blackburn in Daltonv Angus & Co (1881) 6 App Cas 740, 818 et seq. See also Jackson The Law of Easements and Profits (1979) p 110.

76. (1881) 6 App Cas 740, 773. There are interesting parallels between the five-pronged test which Fry J set out in Dalton v Angus & Co (1881) 6 App Cas 740, 774 and the five probanda which Fry J laid down in Willmott v Barber (1880) 15 ChD 96, 105 as being essential for an equity arising out of acquiescence.

77. [1991] Ch 271.

78. Dillon LJ [1991] Ch 271, 281. See also Pennycuick V-C inDiment v N H Foot [1974] 1 WLR 1427, 1433; Vaughan Williams LJ in Union Lighterage Co v London Graving Dock Co [1902] 2 Ch 557, 569; Bennett J in Lloyds Bank v Dalton [1942] Ch 466,471.

79. [1991] Ch 271, 288.

80. Ibid.

81. Diment v N H Foot [1974] 1 WLR 1427; Union Lighterage Co v London Graving Dock Co [1902] 2 Ch 557.

82. Rochdale Canal Co v Radcliffe (1852) 18 QB 287.

83. Diment v N H Foot Ltd [1974] 1 WLR 1427.

84. Hollins v Verney (1884) 13 QBD 304.

85. Fry J in Dalton v Angus & Co (1881) 6 App Cas 740, 774.

86. Slade J in Powell v McFarlane (1979) 38 P&CR 452, 471–472.

87. Ibid at 472.

88. Ibid.

89. Hughes v Cork [1994] EGCS 25.

90. (1988) 55 P&CR 83.

91. Ibid at 87.

92. Seller LJ in Williams Bros Direct Supply v Rafferty [1958] 1 QB 159, 173.

93. Tecbild Ltd v Chamberlain (1969) 20 P&CR 633.

94. See also Wilson v Martin's Executors [1993] 24 EG 119.

95. See, for example, Windeler v Whitehall [1990] 2 FLR 505.

96. [1988] 1 FLR 237, 240.

97. (1993) 65 P&CR 1,8.

98. The Queen v Smith (1981) 113 DLR (3d) 522.

99. Law Reform Committee Fourteenth Report on the Acquisition of Easements by Prescription (Cmnd 3100, 1966).

100. Ibid p 11, para 32.

101. Ibid p 12, para 34.

102. See Law Reform Committee Twenty-first Report–Final Report on Limitation of Actions (Cmnd 6923, 1977).

103. Dockray ‘Why Do We Need Adverse Possession?’ [1985] Conv 272, 277–284.

104. The whole of England and Wales has been an area of compulsory registration since 1 December 1990 (Land Registration, England and Wales: The Registration of Title Order 1989, SI 1989/1347) and the Land Registry is beginning to consider mechanisms to complete the register. See Wilkinson ‘I Have a Dream’ [1993] Conv 101.

105. Other countries which have adopted the Torrens system of title registration have retained the traditional doctrines. For the position in Australia see Bradbrook, MacCallum & Moore Australian Real Property Law (1991), paras 15.82–15.86, 16.31–16.33.

106. See Hinde, McMorland & Sims Introduction to Land Law (2nd edn, 1986) p 173, para 2.153.

107. Land Transfer Amendment Act 1963, s 7.

108. Land Transfer Amendment Act 1963, ss 8 and 9.

109. This is subject of course to doctrines such as non est factum, mistake and duress.

110. (1881) 6 App Cas 740, 773.