DOCSLIB.ORG

Landmark Cases in Land Law

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Landmark Cases in Land Law LANDMARK CASES IN LAND LAW Edited by Nigel Gravells lAN[ IN LA Editt'd bj Contents Landmatl in the La Preface v on leadlr Notes on Contributors ix having CI Equiry at 1 Keppell v Bailey (1834); Hill v Tupper (1863) 1 volume! The Numerus Clausus and the Common Law interestn Ben McFarlane decided 2 Todrick v Western National Omnibus Co Ltd (1934) 33 the selec The Interpretation of Easements lawyers. Peter Butt a reappl 3 Re Ellenborough Park (1955) 65 perspect A Mere Recreation and Amusement or theor Elizabeth Cooke neolecn perceivt 4 Taylors Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co Ltd; explore Old & Campbell Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Friendly law of I Society (1979) 81 the con Stitching Together Modern Estoppel of certa Martin Dixon of [he { 5 Federated Homes Ltd v Mill Lodge Properties Ltd (1979) 99 in own Annexation and Intention collect! Nigel P Gravells acaden 6 Williams and Glyn's Bank Ltd v Boland (1980) 125 The Development of a System of Title by Registration Roger Smith 7 Midland Bank Trust Co Ltd v Green (1980) 155 Maintaining the Integrity of Registration Systems Mark P Thompson 8 Street v Mountford (1985); AG Securities v Vaughan; Antoniades v Villiers (1988) 181 Tenancies and Licences: Halting the Revolution Stuart Bridge 9 City of London Building Society v Flegg (1987) 205 Homes as Wealth Nicholas Hopkins LANI viii Contents IN LA 10 Stack v Dowden (200-); Jones [' Kernott (2011) 229 Edited b~ Finding a Home for 'Family Property' Andrew Hayu-ard Notes on Contributors 11 A-1anchesterCit}' Council t' Pinnock (2010) 253 Landman Shifting Ideas of Ownership of Land in the La Susan Bright Stuart Bridge is one of Her Majesty's Circuit Judges. He lectured in prop- on leadir erty law at the University of Cambridge Law Faculty from 1990 until 2012 having c Index 275 and served as a Law Commissioner for England and Wales from. 2001 until Equiry 31 2008 with particular responsibility for property, trusts and family law. volume. He is a Life Fellow of Queens' College, Cambridge, and a Bencher of the interestit Middle Temple. He is one of the editors of Megarry & Wade, The Law of decided Real Property (8th edn, 2012) and a member of the Editorial Board of The the selec Conveyancer and Property Lawyer. lawyers. Susan Bright is Professor of Land Law and McGregor Fellow at New a reappr College, Oxford. She has a particular research interest in how the law perspect relates to the way in which homes are owned, occupied and used, and in the or theot legal protections available when owners seek repossession of homes. She is neqlecte the author of Landlord and Tenant Law in Context (2007). perceive Peter Butt is Emeritus Professor of Law at the University of Sydney. He is explore the author of Land Law (6th edn, 2010) and of The Standard Contract for la..."of I Sale of Land in New South Wales (two editions). He has also written books the con on the rule against perpetuities, on native title, a student casebook on real of certa property, and a co-authored loose-leaf service ou the Torrens system. He of the t: writes the monthly 'Property and Conveyancing' column in the Australian in own Law Journal. He has also written a book on legal drafting (Modern Legal colleen Drafting) and edited a book on the same subject (Piesse's Elements of acadelT Drafting). He is a co-editor of The Australian Legal Dictionary and The Concise Australian LegaL Dictionary. Elizabeth Cooke is Professor of Law at the University of Reading and she is currently serving as a Law Commissioner for England and Wales with responsibility for family law and property law projects. Her research inter- ests include land law, land registration and family property. She is the author of Land Law (2nd edn, 2012), The New Law of Land Registration (2002) and The Modern Law of Estoppel (2000). She edited the first four volumes of Modern Studies in Property Law (2001,2003,2005,2007); and she is the Consultant Editor of the new 'Real Property' voLumein Halsbury's Laws and a member of the Editorial Board of The Conveyancer and Prope-rty Lawyer. Martin Dixon is Reader in the Law of ReaJ Property and Fellow of Queens' College, Cambridge and Visiting Professor of Law at City University, London. He is the author of Modern Land Law (8th edn, 2012) and one of the editors of Megarry & Wade, The Law of Real Property (8th edn, 2012). He is the General Editor of The Conveyancer and Property Lawyer. Contents Preface Lord Oliver vii Table of Statutes xiii Table of Cases xix Introduction Joshua Getzler Chapter 1 Trusts: The Inessentials Tony Honore 7 Chapter 2 Usucapio and the Law of Trusts Jeffrey Hackney 21 Chapter 3 Formality and Informality in Property and Contract John Cartwright 36 Chapter 4 The Motive, Not the Deed Lionel Smith 53 Chapter 5 Restitution Through the Looking Glass: Restitution Within Equity and Equity Within Restitution Graham Virgo 82 Chapter 6 Professional Liability in the Will-Making Process Sir Christopher Slade III Chapter 7 Form and Substance Lord Templeman 130 x COIlfCll1S Chapter 8 Contributors Tackling Avoidance Ben McFarlane and Edwin Simpson 135 Chapter 9 Registered: Land - A Law Unto Itsclf? Charles HarpU01 187 Chapter 10 The Rhetoric of Realty John Cartwright, Student in Law, Christ Church, Oxford Kevin Gray and Susan Francis Gray 204 Joshua Getzler, Fellow and Tutor in Law, St Hugh's College, Oxford Chapter 11 Kevin Gray, Professor of Law and Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge Susan Gray, Solicitor, formerly Assistant Land Registrar, HM Land Registry, and Roman and English Prescription (or Incorporeal Property Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Greenwich Joshua Getzler 281 Jeffrey Hackney, Fellow and Tutor in Law, Wadham College, Oxford Chapter 12 Charles Harpum, Barrister, Falcon Chambers, London, formerly Law Reading Roman Law with Edward Born Commissioner for England and Wales and Fellow of Downing College, Cambridge Ann Smart 324 Tony Honore, Emeritus Professor of Law and Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford Ben McFarlane, Student in Law, Christ Church, Oxford Index 329 Edwin Simpson, Student in Law, Christ Church, Oxford Sir Christopher Slade, formerly a Lord Justice of Appeal Ann Smart, formerly Fellow and Tutor in Law, St Hugh's College, Oxford Lionel Smith, Professor of Law and William Dawson Scholar in Law, Faculty of Law and Institute of Comparative Law, McGill University, Canada, formerly Fellow and Tutor in Law, St Hugh's College, Oxford Lord Templeman, formerly a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary Graham Virgo, Reader in Law and Fellow of Downing College, Cambridge Table of Contents Preface v 1. A System of Land Law for the 21st Century 1. Responding LO Fraud in Tide Registration Systems: A Comparative Study 3 Matthew Harding and Michael Bryan 2. The Versatility of State Indemnity Provisions 35 Simon Cooper 3. Easements and Servitudes Created by Implied Grant, Implied Reservation or Prescription and Title-by-Registration Systems 61 Fiona R Bums 4. Feudal Law: The Case for Reform 99 Judith Bray n. Trusts and Equitable Remedies 5. Restrictions on Dispositions of Charity Property-Protection or Undue Burden? 125 Jea-n Warburton 6. 'You Just Gotta Keep the Customer Satisfied': Where Stands the Beneficiary's Right to Information? 145 Gerwyn Ll H Griffiths 7. Draftsmen and Suspicious Wills 159 Roger Kerridge 8. Territorial Extremism in Awards of Specific Performance 183 Peter Sparkes Ill. Family Homes 9. Constructive Trusts and Constructing Intention 203 Nick Piska 10. Bankrupt Husbands and the Application of the Doctrine of Exoneration in Australian Law: Moving into the 21st Century 235 Justice Berna Collier x Table of Contents 11. The Elderly, Their Homes and the Unconscionable Bargain Doctrine 265 Lorna Fox O'M,1iJ011), and James Devenney I IV. Different Conceptions of Property 12. Selling the Land: Should it Stop? A Case Study A System of Land Law from the South Pacific 289 Sue Farran for the 21st Century 13. Ownership, Possession. Title and Transfer: Human Remains in Museum Collections 313 Charlotte Woodhead 14. Protection of Cultural Property in Time of Armed Conflict: UK Ratification of the Hague Convention 1954 337 Sarah Williams and Jamie Glister 15. The Extension of Land Registration Principles to New Property Rights in Environmental Goods 363 Pamela O'Connor V. The Nature of Property Rights 16. The Role of Expectation in the Determination of Proprietary Estoppel Remedies 389 John Mee 17. Leases: Property, Contract or More? .419 Jill Morgan 18. The Property Rigbts of Tribes 433 Dr PC McHugh Index 473 vi Preface interested in the indefeasibility problem discussed under land registration will recognise the pertinence of this topic to issues in land registration. Heather Conway's chapter takes a comparative look at equitable accounting, a subject often neglected in the study of the law on the family home. Charlotte Smith Contents gives a very welcome historical perspective on the origins of the law on undue influence. Sarah Nield's chapter considers issues surrounding the use of prop- erty as security, particularly from a human rights point of view; and Paul Eden's Preface v chapter takes a fresh look at Re Goldcorp Exchange Ltd and possibilities of a Notes on Contributors ix proprietary remedy for investors in an insolvent company. Table of Cases xi Traditionally the conference has included a session on the law of landlord T able of Legislation xxv and tenant, and has included some work on the emerging law of commonhold; these interests are represented by an appraisal of commonhold by Peter Smith I Keynote Address and Cornie van der Merwe, and by Martin Davey's chapter on the regulation of 1.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Property and Democratic Deliberation: the Numerus Clausus Principle and Democratic Experimentalism in Property Law Anna Di Robilant Boston University School of Law
    Boston University School of Law Scholarly Commons at Boston University School of Law Faculty Scholarship Spring 2014 Property and Democratic Deliberation: The Numerus Clausus Principle and Democratic Experimentalism in Property Law Anna di Robilant Boston University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Property Law and Real Estate Commons Recommended Citation Anna di Robilant, Property and Democratic Deliberation: The Numerus Clausus Principle and Democratic Experimentalism in Property Law, 62 American Journal of Comparative Law 367 (2014). Available at: https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/77 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Boston University School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Boston University School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PROPERTY AND DEMOCRATIC DELIBERATION: THE NUMERUS CLAUSUS PRINCIPLE AND DEMOCRATIC EXPERIMENTALISM IN PROPERTY LAW 62 American Journal of Comparative Law 301 (Issue 2 / Spring 2014) Boston University School of Law Public Law & Legal Theory Paper No. 14-27 (June 19, 2014)) Anna di Robilant Boston University School of Laww This paper can be downloaded without charge at: http://www.bu.edu/law/faculty/scholarship/workingpapers/2014.html Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2456658 \\jciprod01\productn\C\COM\62-2\COM203.txt unknown Seq: 1 18-FEB-14 8:34 ANNA DI ROBILANT* Property and Democratic Deliberation: The Numerus Clausus Principle and Democratic Experimentalism in Property Law† ABSTRACT First-year law students soon become familiar with the numerus clausus principle in property law.
    [Show full text]
  • The Law of Property
    THE LAW OF PROPERTY SUPPLEMENTAL READINGS Class 14 Professor Robert T. Farley, JD/LLM PROPERTY KEYED TO DUKEMINIER/KRIER/ALEXANDER/SCHILL SIXTH EDITION Calvin Massey Professor of Law, University of California, Hastings College of the Law The Emanuel Lo,w Outlines Series /\SPEN PUBLISHERS 76 Ninth Avenue, New York, NY 10011 http://lawschool.aspenpublishers.com 29 CHAPTER 2 FREEHOLD ESTATES ChapterScope -------------------­ This chapter examines the freehold estates - the various ways in which people can own land. Here are the most important points in this chapter. ■ The various freehold estates are contemporary adaptations of medieval ideas about land owner­ ship. Past notions, even when no longer relevant, persist but ought not do so. ■ Estates are rights to present possession of land. An estate in land is a legal construct, something apart fromthe land itself. Estates are abstract, figments of our legal imagination; land is real and tangible. An estate can, and does, travel from person to person, or change its nature or duration, while the landjust sits there, spinning calmly through space. ■ The fee simple absolute is the most important estate. The feesimple absolute is what we normally think of when we think of ownership. A fee simple absolute is capable of enduringforever though, obviously, no single owner of it will last so long. ■ Other estates endure for a lesser time than forever; they are either capable of expiring sooner or will definitely do so. ■ The life estate is a right to possession forthe life of some living person, usually (but not always) the owner of the life estate. It is sure to expire because none of us lives forever.
    [Show full text]
  • Optimal Standardization in the Law of Property: the Numerus Clausus Principle
    Article Optimal Standardization in the Law of Property: The Numerus Clausus Principle Thomas W. Merrill, and Henry E. Smith" CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 3 II. THE NUMERUS CLAUSUS IN THE COMMON LAW OF PROPERTY .............. 9 A. The Numerus Clausus as a Norm of JudicialSelf-Governance ....... 9 B. The Common Law's Standardizationof Property....................... 12 1. Estates in Land ................................................................... 12 2. ConcurrentInterests ........................................................... 14 3. Nonpossessory Interests....................................................... 16 4. Interests in PersonalProperty ............................................ 17 5. Intellectual Property........................................................... 19 C. JudicialRecognition of the Numerus Clausus ........................... 20 D . Sum m ary..................................................................................... 23 t John Paul Stevens Professor of Law, Northwestern University. t" Associate Professor of Law, Northwestern University. The authors would like to thank Charlotte Crane, Bob Ellickson, Richard Epstein, Clay Gillette, David Haddock, Henry Hansmann, Michael Heller, Jim Krier, John Langbein, Richard McAdams, Fred McChesney, Eric Posner, Eric Rasmusen, Carol Rose, Bob Scott, Marshall Shapo, Dick Speidel, Jim Speta, Debra Stark, and the participants at a Northwestern faculty workshop and at the 2000 annual
    [Show full text]
  • Re-Evaluating Recreational Easements-New Norms for the Twenty-First
    Middlesex University Research Repository An open access repository of Middlesex University research http://eprints.mdx.ac.uk Pascoe, Susan ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8618-2842 (2019) Re-evaluating recreational easements- new norms for the twenty-first century? In: Modern Studies in Property Law. McFarlane, Ben and Agnew, Sinéad, eds. Modern Studies in Property Law, 10 . Hart Publishing, pp. 167-186. ISBN 9781509921379, e-ISBN 9781509921409, e-ISBN 9781509921393, e-ISBN 9781509921386. [Book Section] (doi:10.5040/9781509921409.ch-010) Final accepted version (with author’s formatting) This version is available at: https://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/25568/ Copyright: Middlesex University Research Repository makes the University’s research available electronically. Copyright and moral rights to this work are retained by the author and/or other copyright owners unless otherwise stated. The work is supplied on the understanding that any use for commercial gain is strictly forbidden. A copy may be downloaded for personal, non-commercial, research or study without prior permission and without charge. Works, including theses and research projects, may not be reproduced in any format or medium, or extensive quotations taken from them, or their content changed in any way, without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder(s). They may not be sold or exploited commercially in any format or medium without the prior written permission of the copyright holder(s). Full bibliographic details must be given when referring to, or quoting from full items including the author’s name, the title of the work, publication details where relevant (place, publisher, date), pag- ination, and for theses or dissertations the awarding institution, the degree type awarded, and the date of the award.
    [Show full text]
  • Nestor Davidson Standardization
    DRAFT: PLEASE DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE WITHOUT AUTHOR’S PERMISSION (BUT ALL COMMENTS ARE WELCOME) STANDARDIZATION AND PLURALISM IN PROPERTY LAW Nestor Davidson Standardization in property law—the near universal tendency of property interests to be found in a limited list of mandatory forms—poses an intriguing puzzle for property theory. If property law is meant to bolster autonomy and enhance the efficiency that private ordering can bring to economic relations, then how to account for a persistent feature of the law that seems consistently to undermine these goals? A number of scholars have attempted to tackle this problem in recent years. Some have focused on what might actually be efficiency enhancing about standardization. Others have argued that standardization instead reflects inherent categories of social or external meaning. These accounts, however, are ultimately limited. Efficiency theories overemphasize the structure of standardization with little interest in the content of the forms, while explanations focused on content fail to account for the persistence of the underlying structure of standardization in disparate legal systems. This Article proposes a theory of standardization in property law that focuses on the particular patterns of pluralism inherent in the standard forms. This pluralism brings to the fore the essentially regulatory function that the standard forms play. Even as standardization remains a consistent feature of property law, legal systems constantly tinker with the standard list and with the mandatory content of the forms themselves. This process produces a menagerie of forms that set the ex ante conditions under which property can be held while leaving a range of choice to private ordering as a matter of regulatory design.
    [Show full text]
  • The Principle of Numerus Clausus in European Property Law
    The Principle of Numerus Clausus in European Property Law Ius Commune Europaeum Bram Akkermans PhD-thesis The Principle of Numerus Clausus in European Property Law ISBN-13: 978-90-5095-824-0 D/2008/7849/65 NUR 822 © 2008 Intersentia Antwerp – Oxford – Portland www.intersentia.com No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photo copy, micro- film or any other means, without written permission from the author. PREFACE It is a great joy to finish a project after having worked on it for a period of four years. The work in this book is the result of research on my Ph.D. thesis at the Faculty of Law of Maastricht University, undertaken in the period from February 2004 until December 2007. During my research I have had the honour and pleasure to discuss my work with various property law and comparative law experts across the world. Some of them deserve a special word of thanks. First and foremost I owe gratitude to my supervisor Prof. dr. Sjef van Erp. Few in the world are patient enough to sit and listen to a beginning researcher and always make time to think and reflect with him. Many thanks for opening his incredible network for me. In the past years I have very much enjoyed working together, a cooperation I hope to continue for many more years. Second, the members of the Ius Commune Casebook Team on Property law must be mentioned. William Swadling of Brasenose College, Oxford University, for hosting me, both in the early as well as in the more advanced stages of my research.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 `Anna Di Robilant Property and Deliberation. the Numerus Clausus
    `Anna di Robilant Property and Deliberation. The Numerus Clausus Principle, New Property Forms and New Property Values. draft Introduction The numerus clausus principle means that property law recognizes only a limited menu of mandatory forms. In the United States, first year law students spend significant time mastering the limited menu of estates in land. In France or in Italy, every first year student learns that the “real rights” are ownership, emphyteusis, superficies, real servitudes, the right of usufruct, the right of use and the right of habitation. The numerus clausus principle exists in both the civil law and the common law, but, comparative law scholars warn, its nature and scope differ. In the civil law, the numerus clausus is a rigid rule with a long historical pedigree. It has structured the property system since Roman law. It is either explicitly stated or implied in the civil code. The menu of recognized forms is a relatively short one, comprising less than ten items. It is also significantly stable, with few variations from Justinian to the present. By contrast, in the common law, the numerus clausus has attracted the attention of property scholars only recently. It is a more flexible rule of judicial self-governance. The menu is a richer one, comprising forms, such as the trust, that civil law scholars have long envied. The fact that the numerus clausus is a near universal feature of property systems has not made it less puzzling to private law scholars. Isn’t private law’s very function to provide individuals with flexible legal devices that allow them to reach any desired economic outcome?1 If flexibility and customization are what private law promises, then why do virtually all modern legal systems provide a restricted list of recognized forms? In recent years, property experts have proposed a variety of possible explanations for the numerus clausus principle.
    [Show full text]
  • COMMISSION on PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES First Extraordinary
    BACKGROUND STUDY PAPER NO. 1 E November 1994 COMMISSION ON PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES First Extraordinary Session Rome, 7 - 11 November 1994 THE APPROPRIATION OF THE BENEFITS OF PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES FOR AGRICULTURE: AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE ALTERNATIVE MECHANISMS FOR BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION by Timothy M. Swanson, David W. Pearce and Raffaello Cervigni This background study paper is one of a number prepared at the request of the Secretariat of the FAO Commission on Plant Genetic Resources, to provide a theoretical and academic background to economic, technical and legal issues related to the revision of the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources. The study is the responsibility of the authors, and does not necessarily represent the views of the FAO, or its member states. Timothy Swanson is Lecturer in the Faculty of Economics at the University of Cambridge, in the United Kingdom. David Pearce is Professor of Economics at University College, London. All authors are members of the Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment. For reasons of economy, the paper is available only in the language in which it was prepared. THE APPROPRIATION OF THE BENEFITS OF PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES FOR AGRICULTURE: AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE ALTERNATIVE MECHANISMS FOR BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION April 1994 Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment Timothy M. Swanson (Director of Biodiversity Programme) David W. Pearce (Executive Director) Raffaello Cervigni (Research Fellow - Biodiversity) This report has been edited by Timothy M. Swanson (individual contributions indicated). TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i 1. INTRODUCTION TO THE BIODIVERSITY PROBLEM 1.1 Previous Discussions 4 1.2 Ongoing Discussions under the Biodiversity Convention 5 1.3 Purpose of the Report 6 Part A The Nature of the Biodiversity Problem in Relation to PGRFA 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Standardization and Pluralism in Property Law Nestor M
    Vanderbilt Law Review Volume 61 | Issue 6 Article 1 11-2008 Standardization and Pluralism in Property Law Nestor M. Davidson Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr Part of the Property Law and Real Estate Commons Recommended Citation Nestor M. Davidson, Standardization and Pluralism in Property Law, 61 Vanderbilt Law Review 1597 (2019) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol61/iss6/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. VANDERBILT LAW REVIEW VOLUME 61 NOVEMBER 2008 NUMBER 6 Standardization and Pluralism in Property Law Nestor M. Davidson* IN TROD U CTIO N .............................................................................. 1598 I. STANDARDIZATION AND THE FORMS OF PROPERTY ............. 1603 A. The Numerus Clausus Principle ............................ 1604 1. Property in Standard Forms ....................... 1604 2. Dynamism in Standardization .................... 1610 a. Dynamism in the List ....................... 1610 b. Dynamism in Mandatory Content.... 1612 c. Dynamism in Private Latitude......... 1615 3. The Institutions of Standardization ........... 1616 B. The Problem of Standardization............................ 1618 1. The Many Lives of Property ........................ 1619 2. Specialization and Efficiency .....................
    [Show full text]
  • A Gross Oversight? an Analysis of the Statutory Introduction of Covenants in Gross and Their Potential Threat to the Boundaries of Property Law
    A Gross Oversight? An analysis of the statutory introduction of covenants in gross and their potential threat to the boundaries of property law Natasha Lea A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the degree of Bachelor of Laws (Honours) University of Otago October 2018 1 Acknowledgements With the warmest, tightest hugs I wish to thank Lucy and Gendi, for being the best flatties and closest friends for the last four years; to Jordan, for his hugs and comic relief; to Tom for always being there; and to Meg for her friendship, incredible suggestions, words of wisdom, and generally bettering my life. To you, and all my other amazing friends, the tolerance you all have of my stress levels is truly admirable. To my family for their continued support, love and phone calls. Despite your confusion as to what I have been researching for the past year, you are my rock. To Nicola Peak, for inspiring me as an incredible property lawyer and role model. Thank you for teaching me the ‘tangibility’ of property and law. To Stuart Anderson, for sparking an idea for an entire dissertation topic from a singular comment in a second-year property law lecture. Lastly, to Ben France-Hudson, for being himself; the most remarkably talented, caring and compassionate lawyer and friend. I count myself incredibly lucky to have had you by my side throughout this process. Thank you for absolutely everything. 2 Contents Introduction 4 I Approaches to freehold covenants 6 A Freehold covenants 6 1 The creation of freehold covenants 7 B Closed classes of property
    [Show full text]
  • Toward a Model Law of Estates and Future Interests
    Toward a Model Law of Estates and Future Interests D. Benjamin Barros* Table of Contents I. Introduction ...................................................................................... 4 II. The Case for Reform ........................................................................ 7 A. The Bestiary of Estates and Future Interests .............................. 7 B. The Unnecessary Complexity of the Current System .............. 17 C. If It Ain’t (Completely) Broke, Why Fix It? ............................ 20 III. Two Mechanisms of Reform: Restatements v. Model Laws .......... 22 IV. Crafting a Model Law ..................................................................... 28 A. Initial Considerations ............................................................... 28 1. Naming Issues ................................................................... 29 2. Elimination of the Vestiges of Feudalism ......................... 30 3. Alienability of Present and Future Interests ...................... 30 4. Scope and Definitions of Present and Future Interests ...... 31 B. Present Possessory Interests ..................................................... 32 1. The Fee Simple Absolute .................................................. 32 2. Nonrecognition of Fee Tail and Fee Simple Conditional ........................................................................ 33 3. The Life Estate .................................................................. 34 4. The Tenancies ..................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Newsletter Winter 2018
    Become a RIBA Friend of Architecture for just £45 and enjoy: NEWSLETTER WINTER 2018 • A year-long programme of events • Discounts on seasonal events • Subscription to ‘A Magazine’ exclusive to RIBA Friends • 10% off in the RIBA Bookshop & Café at 66 Portland Place • 25% off RIBA prints • E-newsletters architecture.com/friends E: [email protected] T: 020 7307 3809 Royal Institute of British Architects, Registered Charity No. 210566 DO YOU OWN A LISTED PROPERTY OR ARE YOU THINKING OF BUYING ONE? You never know when you might need expert help and advice Additionally the Club provides a voice in Parliament to represent with the day to day challenges of owning a listed home, and that’s the views of listed property owners. For vital insider information, where The Listed Property Owners’ Club comes in. We advise fi nancial savings and peace of mind, join The Listed Property members on conservation, planning, unauthorised works, insurance, Owners’ Club today from £4 a month. Quote ‘SAVE.’ Saving the Empire Cinema legal issues and VAT, plus they receive our bi-monthly magazine Listed Heritage and have access to our Suppliers Directory – Landmark legal win: government must give reasons a list of hundreds of nationwide specialists for the care, restoration THE LISTED PROPERTY and conservation of listed properties. OWNERS’ CLUB 01795 844939 WWW.LPOC.CO.UK Reimagining Manchester’s historic core ASSEMBLY ROOMS – EDINBURGH 27 OCT 2018 THE LISTED OLYMPIA – LONDON 9 - 10 FEB 2019 Death and life of Palmyra PROPERTY SHOW Advance tickets only £8 when quoting ‘SAVE8’ (or free with LPOC membership) – visit www.lpoc.co.uk (£15 on the door) news · casework · events · book reviews SUPPORT SAVE SAVE Britain’s Heritage is a strong, independent voice in conservation that has been fi ghting for threatened historic buildings and sustainable reuses since 1975.
    [Show full text]