Lanbuk on the Law of Land: cases
30 cases, each with its facts, the issue, what was held and the principle.
Posted By lanbuk.com
- Bernstein v Skyviews & General Ltd (1978)The rights of a landowner in the airspace above the land are limited to the height needed for the ordinary use and enjoyment of the land and the structures on i
- United States v Causby (1946)The landowner owns as much of the superjacent airspace as he can use in connection with the land. The air above that is a public highway.
- Commissioner for Railways v Valuer-General (1974)The maxim is, at most, a statement of the extent of the owner's rights, not a declaration that airspace is a separate estate.
- Rylands v Fletcher (1868)Non-natural use of land, plus escape of a dangerous thing, gives rise to liability without proof that the occupier was personally careless.Read the full judgment
- Parker v British Airways Board (1982)A finder has a right against all but the true owner, unless the occupier had manifested an intention to control the building and the things in it before the fin
- City of London Corporation v Appleyard (1963)A chattel found in, or attached to, the land itself belongs to the owner of the land, not to the finder. A chattel lying on the land is different.
- Embrey v Owen (1851)Riparian use must be reasonable. A sensible irrigation, which does not materially injure the lower owner, is not actionable.
- Sutton v Moody (1697)Wild animals are no one's while at liberty. Once killed on the land, they belong to the landowner, even against the person who killed them if that person was a
- Holland v Hodgson (1872)Articles fixed even slightly are prima facie part of the land, unless they were always intended to remain chattels. Articles resting on their own weight are pri
- Leigh v Taylor (1902)Fixing that does no more than is necessary to display a chattel does not make it part of the land.
- Hulme v Brigham (1943)Weight, and a slight attachment for stability, do not turn a machine into part of the land.
- Berkeley v Poulett (1977)Resting on its own weight, a heavy object remains a chattel unless the purpose was to improve the land permanently.
- D'Eyncourt v Gregory (1866)Objects that carry out a permanent design for the building can be fixtures even though they are not fastened.
- Doherty v Allman (1878)Equity does not restrain a tenant from altering premises where the alteration is an improvement and the lease is a long one.
- Re Ethel and Mitchell and Butler's Contract (1901)Before the modern presumption in favour of the fee simple, the statutory words had to be used. 'In fee' was not 'in fee simple'.
- Sifton v Sifton (1938)A determining event, like a condition subsequent, must be certain. If the court cannot say what will bring the gift down, the limitation fails.
- Re Macleay (1875)A total restraint on alienation, attached to a fee simple as a condition subsequent, is void. A partial restraint may be valid.
- Shelley's Case (1581)If a freehold is given to a person and, in the same instrument, an estate is limited mediately or immediately to his heirs or the heirs of his body, and both li
- Wild's Case (1599)Under a devise to a person and his children, the estate depends on whether any child is alive when the will is made.
- Van Grutten v Foxwell (1897)Where the rule applies, 'heirs' cannot be read as a word of purchase merely because that is what the testator wanted.
- Bankes v Small (1887)A base fee lasts only as long as the entail would have lasted, but it can be turned into a fee simple once the statutory conditions are met.
- King v Williams (1929)Wild's Case is received law in Sierra Leone and has been applied to local wills.Read the full judgment
- Walsh v Lonsdale (1882)A specifically enforceable contract for a lease is treated, as between the parties, as if the lease had been granted. Equity regards as done that which ought to
- Lace v Chantler (1944)The maximum duration of a lease must be certain when the lease is granted.
- Wood v Leadbitter (1845)A licence, even if paid for, was revocable at common law and did not create an interest in land.
- Hurst v Picture Theatres Ltd (1915)Where equity would stop a licensor breaking a contractual licence, the licensee who is then ejected is not treated as a trespasser.
- National Provincial Bank Ltd v Ainsworth (1965)A personal right of occupation, without a property interest, does not run with the land.
- Ramsden v Dyson (1866)Proprietary estoppel protects a person who has acted to his detriment on an expectation the owner encouraged.
- Crabb v Arun District Council (1976)Where an owner encourages a belief that a right will be granted, and the other party acts to his detriment, equity will give effect to the expectation in whatevRead the full judgment
- Taylor Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co Ltd (1982)Proprietary estoppel turns on unconscionability, not on forcing the facts into Willmott v Barber.