Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-g78kv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-25T14:40:34.526Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Intention and the creation of proprietary rights: are leases different?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

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

Extract

There are various angles from which the role of intention in the creation of proprietary rights can be approached. First, since proprietary rights are rights which are legally enforceable, rights which are established by a particular transaction or arrangement cannot take effect as proprietary rights unless the parties intend to create legal relations. So, even in a case where Y is in exclusive occupation of land owned by X and pays X a periodic sum in return for use of the land there is no tenancy - and no contractual licence - if the parties do not intend to enter legal relations.

Type
Research Article
Information
Legal Studies , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , July 1996 , pp. 200 - 217
Copyright
Copyright © Society of Legal Scholars 1996

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.)

Footnotes

*

I am grateful to David Cowan for his comments on an earlier version of this article. The usual disclaimers apply.

References

1. See Lord Greene MR in Booker v Palmer [1942] 2 All ER 674,677.

2. Marcroft Wagons v Smith [1951] 2 KB 496; Heslop v Burns [1974] 1 WLR 1241.

3. Nunn v Dalrymple (1990) 59 P & CR 231; Ward v Warnke (1990) 22 HLR 496.

4. By way of exception an oral agreement for a lease taking effect in possession for a period not exceeding three years at the best rent which can be reasonably obtained creates a legal estate: Law of Property Act 1925, 54(2).

5. See Howard & Hill The Informal Creation of Rights in Land’ (1995) 15 LS 356.

6. See Rudden ‘Economic Theory v Property Law: the Numerus Clausus Problem’ in Eeklaar & Bell eds), Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence (Third Series) (Oxford: OW, 1987) 239.

7. (1834) 2 Myl&K 517, 535.

8. See Re Ellenborough Park [1956] Ch 131.

9. London & Blenheim Estates Ltd v Ladbroke Retail Parks Ltd [1994] 1 WLR 31.

10. See the speech of Lord Wilberforce in National Provincial Bank v Ainsworth [1965] AC 1175, 1247–1248.

11. Honoré‘Ownership’ in Guest (ed), Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence (1961) 107, 108.

12. See Bell The Modern Law of Personal Property in England and Ireland (1989) p 4.

13. The durability of rights in the nature of ownership becomes a relevant issue in cases involving the sale of goods where one of the exceptions to the principle nemo dar quod nor haber is applicable. See, for example, Sale of Goods Act 1979, ss 21 to 26 (as amended by the Sale of Goods (Amendment) Act 1994, s 1) and the Factors Act 1889, ss 2, 8 and 9.

14. (1992) 65 P & CR 179.

15. Nourse LJ at 183.

16. Nourse LJ at 184.

17. [1996] 1 All ER 659.

18. [1948] 2 All ER 133.

19. [1972] Ch 359.

20. [1990] Ch 206.

21. See, for example, Hornby ‘Tenancy for Life or Licence’ (1977) 93 LQR 561.

22. Vinelott J in Ungurian v Lesnoff [1990] Ch 206, 226.

23. Settled Land Act 1925, 1 (1).

24. [1996] I All ER 659,667.

25. Spencer's Case (1583) 5 Co Rep 16a. The law has been altered by the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995, which came into force on 1 January 1996.

26. Haywood v Brunswick Permanent Benefit BS (1881) 8 QBD 403; Rhone v Stephens [1994] AC 310.

27. London CC v Allen [1914] 3 KB 642; Hall v Ewin (1887) 37 ChD 74; Regent Oil v Gregory [1966] Ch 402.

28. In the context of freehold land this means that the covenant must be protected by registration as a land charge (if the covenantor's title is unregistered) or by an entry on the register (if the covenantor's title is registered): Land Charges Act 1972; Land Registration Act 1925.

29. Before the entry into force of s 59 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act 1881 (from which s 79 of the 1925 Act is derived) the position was reversed: a covenant was deemed to be personal unless it was stated in the covenant that the covenantor covenanted on behalf of his successors in title as well as for himself. See, for example, Re Fawcett and Holmes' Contract (1889) 42 ChD 150.

30. [1961] Ch 581.

31. Northern & Shell Plc v Condé Nast & National Magazines Distributors Ltd [1995] RPC 117. See also, in the context of copyright, CBS Ltd v Charmdale Records Distributors Ltd [1981] Ch 91.

32. [1985] AC 809.

33. For the position in Australia see Radaich v Smith (1959) 101 CLR 209 (a case on which Lord Templeman relied in Street v Mountford).

34. See also AG Securities v Vaughn; Antoniades v Villiers [1990] I AC 417.

35. As in Allan v Liverpool Overseers (1874) LR 9 QB 180.

36. [1904] AC 405.

37. Lord Davey at 408.

38. Consolidated Statutes of Newfoundland (2nd Series), s 5 l(7).

39. [1952] 1 TLR 1386.

40. (1863) 3 B&S 826.

41. See also Wells v Mayor, Aldermen & Burgesses of Kingston-upon-Hull (1875) LR 10 CP 402; Smith v Overseers of St Michael, Cambridge (1860) 3 EI&EI 383.

42. [1958] 1 QB 513.

43. Jenkins LJ at 522.

44. Jarman on wills (8th edn, 1951) Vol 2, p. 1477. This proposition can be traced back to Coke upon Littleton, which was first published early in the seventeenth century.

45. (1879) 11 ChD 645,648.

46. [1954] Ch 39.

47. See Williams on Wills (6th edn, 1987) p 742 and the cases cited there.

48. [1978] 3 All ER 262.

49. [1978] 3 All ER 262,265–266.

50. [1994] 1 AC 85.

51. Re Button's Lease [1964] Ch 263.

52. [1990] 1 EGLR 283.

53. [1947] Ch 420.

54. At 426.

55. [1980] 1 WLR 594.

56. [1984] 1 WLR40.

57. (1828) 8 B&C 486,488.

58. (1868) LR 3 QB 739.

59. At 750.

60. (1866) LR 2 QB 120.

61. At 126–127.

62. See, for example, Old Grovebury Manor Farm Ltd v W Seymour Plant Sales & Hire Lrd (No 2) [1979] 1 WLR 1397.

63. [1952] 1 KB 290.

64. [1978] 1 WLR 10 14. See also Aldrington Garages Ltd v Fielder (1978) 37 P & CR 461; Sturolson & Co v Weniz (1984) 17 HLR 140.

65. At 1024–1025.

66. Gray Elements of Land Law (2nd edn, 1993) p 723.

67. [1985] AC 809,825.

68. See Street ‘Coach and Horses Trip Cancelled?: Rent Act Avoidance After Street v Mountford’ [1985] Conv 328.

69. Lord Templeman, [1990] 1 AC 417, 462 (quoting the notes of the judge at first instance).

70. Stein & Shand, Legal Values in Western Society (1974) p 240.

71. [1952] 1 TLR 1386, 1390.

72. See Cowan ‘A Public Dimension to a Private Problem’ [1992] Conv 285,291–292.

73. [1990] 1 AC 417.

74. [1985] AC 809,819.

75. [1990] 1 AC 417,463.

76. In most cases damages would be no more than nominal.

77. Conveyancing and Law of Property Act 1881, s 14(6)(i).

78. Lam Kee Ying v Lam Shes Tong [1975] AC 247. See also Scala House & District Property Co Ltd v Forbes [1974] QB 575.

79. [1949] Ch 751.

80. At 767.

81. [1947] Ch 420,424.

82. Housing Act 1985, S79.

83. AG Securities v Vaughn; Antoniades v Villiers [1990] 1 AC 417,458.

84. Bright ‘Beyond Sham and into Pretence’ (1991) 11 OJLS 136, 140–141. The idea that a laissez-faire approach may not be appropriate in the landlord-tenant context is discussed by members of the House of Lords in Johnson v Moreton [1980] AC 37 (a case decided under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948).

85. The most obvious example of this type of development is the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.

86. See Attew ‘Teleological interpretation and Land Law’ (1995) 58 MLR 696; S Bright & C Bright ‘Unfair’ Terms in Land Contracts: Copy Out or Cop Out? (1995) 111 LQR 655.