Law of Property, Land Registration Act 2002 - Essay Example

LAW OF PROPERTY (i) The issue in this question is in respect of the removal of the prefabricated building and the swings would be dependent on the fact as to whether the land is registered or not. The issue is particularly important as the Land Registration Act 2002 would come into play if land is registered and the land would clearly be an accurate reflection of the state of the title of the land. One of the most important principle that is the mirror principle would come into play. Furthermore, if the land is registered then the property register would clearly reflect the position of the land. It is important to mention the point that the doctrine of ‘caveat emptor’ applies that is let the buyer beware. Thus since Mrs. Batsford if the land had been registered must have carried out a proper inspection of the land and as per the facts she did so. Furthermore, she must have inspected the title register and must have noticed the pre-fabricate buildings and the swings in the title register. Furthermore, if such were not put to her notice in these inspection, she can claim that she had notice of these buildings and swings and such removal was contrary to the provisions of the transfer of land and thus under the provisions of registered land and the doctrine of proprietary estoppels she would be able to claim against Mr. Brown. If the land was unregistered then Mrs. Batsford can argue that she had carried out physical inspection of the land and had looked in the epitome of title. Furthermore it is important to mention that in the instance of a purchase in good faith in case of unregistered land, the voidness rule applies whereby charges not registered are held to be invalid. Thus the determining factor in respect of the claim is the fact that Mrs. Batsford had carried out inspection of the property and/or these were in the title of the land (Dixon 2004). (ii) In respect of this question it is important to examine the definition of land provided in s. 205(1)(ix) of the Law of Property Act 1925 which states: Land includes land of any tenure, and mines and minerals... buildings or parts of buildings and other corporeal hereditaments, and an easement, right, privilege, or benefit in, over, or derived from land; but not an undivided share in land.(Gray et al 2006) It is important to mention here that the rights that Mr.Brown can claim in respect of the land would possibly be that of easements because clearly Mr. Brown has conveyed the land to Mrs. Batsford and she has got all the rights of land over and under it and there can possibly be no claim of retaining the rights below the land that is the underground space. There are three different ways by which an easement can be presumed in respect of the current situation. The first is that of implied by common intention easement. This would not apply as it has come to the attention of Mrs. Batsford after the purchase and there was no common intention. The next important implied by way of easement is that of Wheeldon v. Burrows, however this rule merely applies to grant only and so Mr. Brown would not be able to use this rule in his favour as he is reserving the right of easement rather than granting it. The same principle also applies under section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925, that is it refers merely to grants and not to reservation (Cooke 2006) As far as easements by way of prescription is concerned, it is an established principle that land which belonged to one person cannot be said to create an easement and thus Mr. Brown would not be able to rely on prescription. The next are is that of Prescription at common law which means long use. However such would require a servient owner to be separate from dominant which is not present on the facts (Cooke 2006; Chapelle 2006) Thus it would not be possible for Mr. Brown to claim easements in respect of the underground use of land of Mrs. Batsford after the purchase and a restriction can be be place on him by Mrs. Batsford. (iii) Under the unregistered and registered land principles, the transfer ownership or change in titles after conveyance differs and as such there have been various reforms brought about by the LRA. It is important to mention since Mr. Brown had conveyed the property, the rights and interests in the piece of land that had been conveyed had passed to Mrs. Batsford. Furthermore, even though there would be differing level of time when the title would pass, the interests had passed as the land had been conveyed and any property found therein was to be the property of Mrs. Batsford. Thus it would be irrelevant whether the land is registered or not as Mr.Brown had conveyed the property to Mrs. Batsford and she had acquired all the rights and liabilities of the piece of land. Thus she would be the rightful owner of the gold chain and claim her right of the chain unless it can be proved by Mr. Brown that he was the owner and had lost the chain. Ownership of Mr. Brown would be important because if such is shown then since the interest is not covered under the land conveyance. However, on the facts it is seen that no such ownership exists and Mr. Brown had merely found it and thus he was possibly a trespasser when he found the chain and so cannot claim the gold chain to be his. Thus Mrs. Batsford has a clear cut right on the gold chain and can clearly allege that Mr. Brown in his capacity as a trespasser had entered the land, the assertion would be based on the fact that the conveyance had already taken place and further the gold chain rightfully belonged to Mrs. Batsford.(Dixon 2009; Macken 2006) Part B The strategy that had been adopted in respect of the questions at hand was to analyse the aspect of each question and to consult textbooks in accordance with the requirement. The first important principle that was adopted was to research on registered and unregistered land and the differences in respect of each question. This was carried out by looking at various textbooks, law journals, articles and case law. The next was to look at the question and research on cases on the facts provided. Furthermore, the area of law was thoroughly read from a text book and the cases cited within the text book were researched on LexisNexis as well as Westlaw. From those cases other important cases were found and articles referred to. These cases and article helped to formulate a structured answer to each question. An important issue in respect of the question was that each part had to sub-divided and research carried out accordingly. Using libraries to find textbooks, cases, journals was an effective way. Reading and understanding the law in respect of the question was easy to carry out in libraries. However, it is important to mention that to save time electronic research on specific articles and cases was also conducted. This was done electronically in accordance with the research strategy that had been planned, that is for specific journals/cases/articles the best method was electronic search and this indeed saved time and allowed for better use of time and resources. Electronic searches in respect of articles on unregistered and registered land was also carried out. As pointed out earlier this was important. The specific aspects that were covered were case-law/journals/articles on registered and unregistered land, adverse possession, easements and other rights and interests in land. Consultation was also made to textbooks on law of property, which helped in understanding the definition and broaden the scope of analysis in respect of each question. The textbooks also provided for useful links and case-laws. These links allowed for ease in respect of electronic searches. The law on easements was also extensively researched as this was an area which needed to be looked into. Cases on easements were thoroughly analysed. Further articles in respect of easements were also referred to. Reforms on each area was also checked for from and any reforms that are pending or have been completed in respect of the Land Registration Act 2002 was also done. Further the acts effect were also looked into. Extensive research in respect of the interests in land after conveyancing has been completed was carried out, this allowed for an analysis of who acquires the interests in the land after conveyancing is completed. This area did cause some difficulty when textbooks were referred to. However, after an analysis of case law and articles in respect of conveyancing the position became clearer and a thorough understanding on the topic was developed. REFERENCES West Law LexisNexis Hawkins v. Rutter (1892); Wright v. Macadam (1949); Canham v. Fisk (1831); Hill v. Tupper (1863); Re Aldred (1610); Browne v. Flower (1911); Crow v. Wood (1971) DIXON, M. (2004). Dixon on land law. London, Cavendish Top of Form Gray, Kevin J, Susan F. Gray, and Kevin J. Gray. Land Law. Butterworths core text series. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Print. Top of Form Cooke, Elizabeth. Land Law. Clarendon law series. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Print. Top of Form Chappelle, Diane. Land Law. The Foundation studies in law series. Harlow, England: Pearson/Longman, 2006. Print. Top of Form Bray, Judith. Land Law. Key cases. London: Hodder Arnold, 2006. Print. Top of Form Dixon, Martin. Modern Land Law. London: Routledge-Cavendish, 2009. Print. Top of Form Macken, Claire. Land Law: Study Guide. Land law. Geelong, Vic: Deakin University, 2006. Print. Haley, Michael A, and Michael A. Haley. Land Law. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2010. Print. Top of Form Duddington, John. Land Law. Law express. Harlow: Longman, 2007. Print. Top of Form Land Law. London: Routledge-Cavendish, 2010. Print. Top of Form Cursley, Joe, Mark Davys, and Kate Green. Land Law. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. Print. Top of Form Haley, Michael. Land Law. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2004. Print. Top of Form Riddall, J G. Land Law. London: LexisNexis, 2003. Print. Top of Form Sparkes, Peter. European Land Law. Oxford: Hart, 2007. Print. Read More