Ucl Faculty of Laws Property Law I 2017-8: A X: Also Puts Boats On Canal
Ucl Faculty of Laws Property Law I 2017-8: A X: Also Puts Boats On Canal
Ucl Faculty of Laws Property Law I 2017-8: A X: Also Puts Boats On Canal
LECTURE 3
1. A Reminder
Cohen, DPP, 374: we may find it useful to distinguish those rights that apply
only against the contracting party and those rights that apply against the world
at large and call rights of the latter kind property rights. I dont say that this strict
definition of property is universally followed, but I think generally we will find it more
useful than any broader definition of property.
2. An Example
As promise to give
B an exclusive right
to put boats on canal
Can B assert a right against X?
No: Pollock CB at 127-8: it is not competent to create rights unconnected with the
use and enjoyment of land, and annex them to it so as to constitute a property in the
grantee [B]. This grant merely operates as a licence or covenant on the part of the
grantors [A], and is binding on them as between themselves and [B], but gives [B] no
right of action in his own name for any infringement of the supposed exclusive right.
See too Keppell v Bailey (1834) 2 My & K 517: Lord Brougham LC at 535: There
are certain known incidents to property and its enjoyment; among others, certain
1
burdens wherewith it may be affected, or rights which may be created and may be
enjoyed over it by parties other than the owner; all which incidents are recognised by
the lawAll these kinds of property, however, all these holdings, are well known to
the law and familiarly dealt with by its principles. But it must not therefore be
supposed that incidents of a novel kind can be devised and attached to property
at the fancy and caprice of any owner. It is clearly inconvenient both to the science
of the law and to the public weal that such a latitude should be givengreat
detriment would arise and much confusion of rights if parties were allowed to
invent new modes of holding and enjoying real property, and to impress upon
their lands and tenements a peculiar character, which should follow them into all
hands, however remote.
Birks, Five Keys to Land Law (1998): What is the difference [between rights in rem
and rights in personam]. The practical difference bears on this question. Against whom
can the right be demanded?...A right in rem is a right the exigibility of which is defined
by the location of a thing. The exigibility of a right in personam is defined by the
location of the person.
(1) The only estates in land which are capable of subsisting or being conveyed or
created at law are
(a) An estate in fee simple absolute in possession;
(b) A term of years absolute.
NB We will use the term freehold as a shorthand version of fee simple absolute in
possession even though, strictly speaking, there are other forms of freehold estate
(2) The only interests or charges in or over land which are capable of subsisting or of
being conveyed or created at law are
(a) An easement, right or privilege in or over land for an interest equivalent to
an estate in fee simple absolute in possession or a term of years absolute;
2
(b) A rentcharge in possession issuing out of or charged on land being either
perpetual or for a term of years absolute;
(c) A charge by way of legal mortgage;
(d) Any other similar charge on land which is not created by an instrument;
(e) Rights of entry exercisable over or in respect of a legal term of years
absolute, or annexed, for any purpose, to a legal rentcharge.
(3) All other estates, interests, and charges in or over land take effect as equitable
interests.
4. Legal Estates
- Harriss argument (Property and Justice, 1996): (i) the concept of ownership is
crucial to defining the content of a freehold and of a lease; and (ii) ownership involves
open-ended rights
- The difference between a lease and a licence: Lord Templeman in Street v Mountford
[1985] AC 809 at 816: if B has a lease, then B is able to exercise the rights of an
owner of land which is in the real sense his land, albeit temporarily and subject to
certain restrictions
Note Lord Hoffmann Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] AC 655 at 703: even a
possession which is wrongful against the true owner can found an action for trespass
or nuisance against someone else. In each case, however, the plaintiff (or joint
plaintiffs) must be enjoying or asserting exclusive possession of the land. Exclusive
possession distinguishes an occupier who may in due course acquire title under the
Limitation Act 1980 from a mere trespasser. It distinguishes a tenant holding a
leasehold estate from a mere licensee. Exclusive possession de jure or de facto, now
or in the future, is the bedrock of English land law.
3
Medieval and early-modern lawyers understood this point very well. An attempt to
grant land forever failed to convey a fee simple. A fee simple was a grant of land to
X and his heirs. If X died without heirs, or his line of heirs ended at any point, the fee
simple estate would end and the land escheat to the feudal lord, now more or less
invariably the Crown...Escheat for want of heirs was abolished by the Administration
of Estates Act 1925, which instead provides that, if a person dies without any heir
entitled to receive their estate, the Crown takes the property as bona vacantia.
LPA s. 1(3) All other estates, interests, and charges in or over land take effect as
equitable interests.
So if B has e.g. a life estate/ remainder, then the legal estate (freehold or lease) must be
held on trust for B and others LPA s. 2 then makes clear that a party buying the legal
estate may have a defence to Bs equitable interest: the overreaching defence
5. Legal Interests
- The key point is that the content of Bs right is limited: it does not involve ownership
of any land e.g. an easement cannot give B exclusive possession of As land (as we will
see in Topic 17).