1. Extent of land ownership (Chapter 2 Freehold transactions)
Bernstein of Leigh (Baron) v Skyviews and General Ltd [1978] QB 479
A landowner's rights in the airspace above the land extend only to such height as is necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of the land and the structures on it; rights do not extend indefinitely up to the heavens. Aerial overflight at a reasonable height to take a photograph was therefore not a trespass.
2. Fixtures and chattels (Chapter 2 Freehold transactions)
Holland v Hodgson (1872) LR 7 CP 328
Whether an item is a fixture (part of the land) or a chattel is determined by a two-part test: the degree of annexation to the land and, more importantly, the purpose of annexation. Items affixed for the better enjoyment of the land tend to be fixtures.
Elitestone Ltd v Morris [1997] 1 WLR 687
An object may be (a) a chattel, (b) a fixture or (c) part and parcel of the land itself. A structure (here a timber bungalow resting on concrete blocks by its own weight) can form part of the land where the object of bringing it onto the site was clearly to create a permanent structure, even without physical attachment to the soil.
Botham v TSB Bank plc (1996) 73 P&CR D1
Applying the degree-and-purpose test item by item, fitted carpets, curtains and white goods were held to be chattels (lacking the permanency expected of realty), whereas fitted kitchen units and bathroom fittings such as taps were fixtures.
3. Formalities for contracts of sale (Chapter 4 Exchange of contracts)
Firstpost Homes Ltd v Johnson [1995] 1 WLR 1567
A contract for the sale or disposition of an interest in land under s.2 LP(MP)A 1989 must incorporate all agreed terms in one document (or in each part where contracts are exchanged) and must be signed by or on behalf of each party; a typed name is not a signature for these purposes.
Tootal Clothing Ltd v Guinea Properties Management Ltd (1992) 64 P&CR 452
Section 2 LP(MP)A 1989 applies only to executory land contracts; it does not prevent the parties from making a separate collateral agreement, and once the land contract has been completed (here by grant of the lease) a supplemental agreement is not caught by s.2 and remains enforceable.
4. Investigation of title: overriding interests (Chapter 4 Investigation of title)
Williams & Glyn's Bank Ltd v Boland [1981] AC 487
The beneficial interest of a person in actual occupation of registered land can be an overriding interest taking priority over a later legal charge. 'Actual occupation' is an ordinary plain-English question of fact, not requiring the occupier to be the legal owner.
5. Investigation of title: overreaching (Chapter 4 Investigation of title)
City of London Building Society v Flegg [1988] AC 54
Where capital money is paid to at least two trustees (or a trust corporation), the beneficial interests of occupiers are overreached and transferred to the proceeds of sale; an interest that has been overreached cannot also be an overriding interest by virtue of actual occupation.
6. Investigation of title: actual occupation (Chapter 4 Investigation of title)
Abbey National Building Society v Cann [1991] 1 AC 56
Actual occupation requires a degree of permanence and continuity; the relevant date for an overriding interest is completion, not registration. Preparatory acts such as moving in furniture shortly before completion do not amount to actual occupation, and on an acquisition mortgage there is no scintilla temporis in which the borrower holds free of the charge.
7. Lease or licence (Chapter 6 Structure and content of a lease)
Street v Mountford [1985] AC 809
An agreement granting exclusive possession of premises for a term at a rent creates a tenancy regardless of the label the parties give it; the substance of the arrangement, not its description, determines whether it is a lease or a licence.
8. Certainty of term (Chapter 6 Structure and content of a lease)
Lace v Chantler [1944] KB 368
A lease must have a certain or ascertainable maximum duration; a term granted 'for the duration of the war' was void for uncertainty because its maximum length could not be ascertained when the lease took effect.
Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v London Residuary Body [1992] 2 AC 386
A term that is not for a certain or ascertainable maximum duration cannot be a valid lease; an agreement to let land until needed for road-widening was void for uncertainty, although possession and payment of rent created an implied yearly periodic tenancy.
Berrisford v Mexfield Housing Co-operative Ltd [2011] UKSC 52
An agreement granting occupation for an uncertain period to an individual, where the parties intended occupation for life, takes effect under s.149(6) LPA 1925 as a 90-year term determinable on death, so the certainty-of-term rule did not defeat the arrangement.
9. Termination of a lease (Chapter 9 Termination of a lease)
Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council v Monk [1992] 1 AC 478
A periodic tenancy held by joint tenants can be brought to an end by a notice to quit served by any one of the joint tenants, without the concurrence of the others, in the absence of any contrary contractual provision.
10. Leasehold covenants: quiet enjoyment (Chapter 8 Leasehold covenants and remedies)
Southwark London Borough Council v Mills [2001] 1 AC 1
The covenant for quiet enjoyment is prospective and does not oblige the landlord to remedy defects (such as inadequate sound insulation) existing at the date of the grant; ordinary use of the premises by other tenants does not breach the covenant.
11. Restrictive covenants affecting title (Chapter 4 Investigation of title)
Tulk v Moxhay (1848) 2 Ph 774, 41 ER 1143
The burden of a restrictive (negative) covenant can run with freehold land in equity and bind a successor who takes with notice, provided the covenant is negative, was intended to run with and benefit dominant land, and touches and concerns that land; the remedy is an injunction.
12. Positive covenants affecting title (Chapter 4 Investigation of title)
Rhone v Stephens [1994] 2 AC 310
The burden of a positive covenant does not run with freehold land at common law or in equity; a successor in title cannot be compelled to perform a positive obligation (such as keeping a roof in repair) entered into by a predecessor.