Property Law Notes
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Property Law Notes Part 1 out of 2 [125 pages] Contents: Definitions: What is Property? Distribution of Property Taxonomy Possession + Interference with Possession + Relativity of Title Ownership Tenure and Estates Introduction to Freehold & Leasehold Covenants Personal Property Rights: Security Interests Fixtures and Mixtures Sale of Goods Creation and Transfer + Formalities + Conveyancing Priorities at Common Law + Priorities in Equity Easements and Profits 1 What is Property? Right in rem = a right to a thing which is enforceable generally against other members of society. Right in personam = a right to a thing which is enforceable only against specific persons. The division between property rights and personal rights is based on the enforceability of that right. Wide definition – assignability of rights: Most rights in rem and rights in personam can be transferred to others, and most have value. If can be assigned to third parties, indicates they might be proprietary in nature. A right that can be transferred to others may have value because it can be sold. These rights count as assets. Can consciously/actively assign property rights, or might be assigned to a third party by operation of law: o Death (intestacy provisions or will) o Bankruptcy (Insolvency Act, property is assigned/transferred to trustee in bankruptcy) o Wealth Some in rem rights can’t be assigned so wouldn’t be recognised as proprietary under the wider definition of assignability. Some things are in rem proprietary rights that can’t be assigned, e.g. non-assignable lease, easement (if you don’t have the DT or ST). One way to destroy an in rem right is to destroy the thing to which it relates. They bind the whole world to respect the right, e.g. an easement. Yvonne promises Xavier to keep off Zoe’s land. Is Xavier’s right different from Zoe’s? What is the difference? Content of the right is exactly the same. The only difference is that X's right is enforceable only against Y, but Z's right is enforceable against everyone. Theory that the difference between rights in rem and rights in personam is the number of people the right can be enforced against. Rights in rem about the thing not the person, you know you are not supposed to go on the person's land, don't care about the person, doesn't matter to you who has the right. Just know that you don't have the permission to interfere with that thing. 2 Essential characteristics of property Value, permanence, assignability, enforceability, excludability, or something else? Right to the thing in question, corresponds to a general duty to ensure others do not interfere or perform other things to it. Things that are inhibited or things that are mandatory. Own land can prohibit you from passing over it unless you have right of way. Mandatory obligation to only walk on land you have the right to walk over. Land is unique in that you can’t revoke agreement to sell, can have specific performance ordered. Is property different from wealth? Is wealth transferable? Wealth/value is the measure of property rights you have. King v David Allen & Sons Billposting Ltd [1916] UKHL 1 Narrow meaning of property = based on enforceability Who can this right be enforced against? Was the plaintiff’s right to post bills on a wall a right in rem enforceable generally against others or a right in personam enforceable only against the person who granted it? K made contract with D to allow D to post bills on wall of cinema to be built on K’s land D had rights to advertise on a billboard. K and others created company to build cinema, K leased land to company, which built cinema. New occupants aware of the agreement but did not formalise it. Company refused to let D post bills. Did D have a property right to post bills? Company wins, D loses. Goes to HL. Right that relates to a specific thing. Not enforceable against others, can only be enforceable against K. Personal right, not a property right. K said it was to do with the company, court decided it was to do with K not the company. K didn’t realise that the licence not being factored into the agreement would result in it being pushed away. In English law, can't have free standing right to wall, can have specific right to post ad on wall. D only had a personal right It is a property right in personam. This is the kind of thing where you can request specific performance, building is unique in quality/characteristic (not like selling a chair, can replace with another chair). K had to pay damages. 3 Grady v HM Prison Service [2003] EWCA Civ 527 Wide meaning of property = assignability, is this right assignable? Is a claim for unfair dismissal an assignable right? G’s claim for unfair dismissal was struck out G appealed to Employment Appeals Tribunal, became bankrupt while she is making the appeal. When she went bankrupt, her assignable rights were giving to trustee bankers. Property of a bankrupt vests in the trustee. Was G’s right to appeal “property” which vested in her trustee in bankruptcy? Is trustee custodian to all her rights? Entitled to damages that she gets? Prison Service said that this right to claim was assigned away. Court said not assignable, personal to Grady. Trustee did have standing to represent Grady because proceedings already happening. G had standing, personal claim that she started before bankruptcy. Court says trustee is advocating on behalf of G. Wrongful dismissal in labour law is assignable because claim for damages in lieu of notice. Unfair dismissal is a statutory wrong, one remedy is reinstatement into the job. That's why it was personal to Grady. Grady makes the claim before she is bankrupt Important because trustee cannot be reinstated in the job. Property rights we can acquire as an individual may or not be transferable. Had she been awarded damages, would be okay, would fall under job of trustee anyway. Court ruled in here that it is a personal matter, not property one. G can bring claim, but she can’t get the award for the claim because it is a personal right. Foley v Hill (1848) 2 HLC 28, 9 ER 1002 Fundamental nature of bank account and nature of bank’s relationship with customer in relation to the account. A banker does not hold the sums in a bank account on trust for its customer. Instead the relationship between them is that of debtor and creditor. Bank account is right in personam, not right in rem because you are not claiming a right to the hard cash itself. When the customer deposits money in the account it becomes the bank's money, and the bank's obligation to repay an equivalent sum (and any agreed interest) to the customer or the customer's order. Had it been held that the bank was a trustee then the bank would not be entitled to use the sums deposited for lending to other parties because of the rule against trustee's making a profit out of the trust property. Role of bank can be trustee with fiduciary responsibilities, in this situation the benefit you get you can pay for wealth management role as gratuitous thanks. Licence or contract to credit money to bank and they secure it on customers’ behalf. 4 Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd (1971) 17 FLR 141 The plaintiffs were members of an Aboriginal clan who claimed that the defendant’s mining activities were interfering with their right to perform traditional ceremonies on the land. The plaintiffs’ rights to perform traditional ceremonies on the land were held not to be property. They failed to prove that their relationship to the land was property because they did not have the rights (a) to alienate (transfer) their right to use the land to others and (b) to exclude other aboriginal clans from using the land. Can property exist without those rights? Would a right to prevent others from interfering with the plaintiffs’ use of the land be a sufficient right of exclusion to constitute property? Blackburn J: Right to use/enjoy, right to exclude others, right to alienate, there may be qualifications to these and not all the rights have to exist together. This case would probably have been decided differently after Mabo 1992. Mabo v Queensland (No 2) [1992] HCA 23, 175 CLR 1 The High Court of Australia recognised native title as a form of property. The doctrine of terra nullius, which imported all laws of England to a new land, did not apply in circumstances where there were already inhabitants present – even if those inhabitants had been regarded at the time as "uncivilised". Any indigenous land rights which had not been extinguished by subsequent grants by the Crown continued to exist in Australia. 5 Distribution of Property Underkuffler (1990): “A right can be defined as that which fulfils an individual need or individual interest that is considered to be of sufficient moral importance to justify the generation of duties for others.” Property rights need special justification because they correspond to duties imposed on everyone in society and not just on those who have consented to undertake particular duties to particular right holders. Rare that any property is wholly private, an individual has 100% decision-making power, e.g. subject to planning law and public control, require permission to build on a piece of land you own. Decisions by government can affect. a privately owned building may be listed under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 s 7 which prevents the owner from doing anything “which would affect its character as a building of special architectural or historic interest, unless the works are authorised”.