My note, ‘Service Occupiers: Who Is In Possession’ reviews the English cases looking at the situation in which an employee lives in property of the employer. The cases provide criteria for deciding whether the employer or the employee is in possession (is a tenant or a licensee). The note is available for download from SSRN by clicking here.
Service Occupiers: Who Is In Possession?
March 28, 2013Street v Mountford
March 19, 2013I’ve written a brief note setting out the main issues covered in Street v Mountford. It is available on SSRN by clicking here. I’ve posted a brief slidecast related to this on Youtube (click here).
SCMP article on adverse possession
February 26, 2013My article ‘Squatters’ rights seem wrong, but ownership isn’t so simple’ appeared in the SCMP on 26th February 2013. It is available here.
Herbert v Doyle: The Common Intention Constructive Trust and Informal Bargains Concerning Land
February 25, 2013I’ve just posted a case-note concerning Herbert v Doyle on SSRN. This case examined the possibility of a common intention constructive trust arising out of a relatively complex bargain that the parties had originally anticipated would be in writing but where they ultimately relied on an agreement reached informally and orally at a meeting. The link is here.
Proprietary estoppel in contract-like settings
February 7, 2013I have just posted a brief note on SSRN on the operation of proprietary estoppel in contract-like (or bargain) cases. It is available here. In Yaxley v Gotts and Kinane v Alimamy Mackie-Conteh, the English Court of Appeal had to consider agreements for the grant of an interest in land that did not comply with the need for a written contract (or the exchange of written contracts) bearing the signatures of both parties (section 2(1) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989). The claimant in each case relied on proprietary estoppel. In each case, the court held that section 2(1) was engaged but that the arrangement also constituted a constructive trust and so fell within section 2(5). In the rather earlier case of E.R. Ives Investment Ltd v High, however, estoppel operated on similar facts even though this seemed to give effect to a contract that ought to have been registered in accordance with the Land Charges Act 1925 but had not been. The note considers these contrasting approaches.
Adverse possession in registered land: case-note on SSRN
January 18, 2013A case-note about Zarb v Parry and IAM Group plc v Chowdrey is now available on SSRN. It looks at the way in which adverse possession claims between neighbours are dealt with in the Land Registration Act 2002 (in England and Wales). This is relevant to Hong Kong as the Hong Kong Law Commission has proposed that the Land Titles Ordinance should be amended to take a similar approach (see the December 2012 Consultation Paper). The SSRN link is available here.
Paper owners need to take clear action to resume possession within the limitation period
January 5, 2013I have posted a brief article on SSRN that pulls together aspects of some recent blog posts. The article can be downloaded from here. The article emphasises the lessons to be drawn from Zarb v Parry, J. Alston & Sons Ltd v BOCM Pauls Ltd and Bligh v Martin.
Hong Kong Land Law Blog
January 2, 2013The Hong Kong Land Law blog was viewed about 140,000 times in 2012 and, all told, there have been just over 205,000 views.
2012 in review
January 2, 2013The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2012 annual report for this blog.
Here’s an excerpt:
The new Boeing 787 Dreamliner can carry about 250 passengers. This blog was viewed about 1,400 times in 2012. If it were a Dreamliner, it would take about 6 trips to carry that many people.
The Pallant v Morgan equity: article and podcast
October 19, 2012My article, ‘The Pallant v Morgan equity” has just been published ([2012] Conveyancer and Property Lawyer 379). It explains the nature of the equity and the contexts in which it is frequently invoked. The article considers the debate as to the nature of the equity and the need to balance commercial certainty, on the one hand, with the need to give effect to agreements that were intended to be taken seriously, on the other.
Steven Gallagher and I have started a Property Law Podcast series on the CUHK iTunes U site. I have done a brief podcast about the Pallant v Morgan equity for this series.
Michael Lower's Blog 