ipl-logo

ER 1111 Can Still Be Considered As Good Law

4359 Words18 Pages

LLB Land Law Problem Question Assessment Term 2 Module Tutor: DR. Nathan Moore
Seminar Tutor: Jonathan Thorpe
Student ID No. 13028751
Question Part A: Explain, providing reasons, whether Lloyd's Bank v Rosset [1990] 1 All ER 1111 can still be considered as good law.
Question Part B: Explain, providing reasons, whether the requirement for a certain period of time should be dispensed with in the law relating to leasehold.
Word Count: 3797

Question 1 Part A: Explain, providing reasons, whether Lloyd's Bank v Rosset [1990] 1 All ER 1111 can Still be considered good law.
Introduction
On an initial review of current England and Wales (EW) trusts and related family property case law, it is apparent that the precedent value once commanded …show more content…

It is difficult to imagine a more circumstance-driven area of English trust and property rights law, given how family relationships have seemingly infinite variety, and unique dimensions that inevitably impact how Court resolve sole name property claims.[footnoteRef:24] This proposition thus provides the first basis on which the suggested continuing relevance of Rosset in sole name property claims is asserted. As noted in the Introduction, the 2007 Stack reasons may have wiped the EW authorities? slate clean in terms of its ?real intention? emphasis, but there remains significant room for the Rosset approach. Taking into account how clear and strict the decision was. The EW cases that have followed Rosset lend particular credence to this contention. [24: Catherine Fairbairn, ?Common law marriage? and cohabitation? House of Commons Library (2014, SN/HA/3372) [Online] Available: (-- removed HTML --) [7 March 2018], …show more content…

In Day v Hosebay,[footnoteRef:56] the Supreme Court held that to be deemed a ?house?; the subject building usage will usually be determinative.[footnoteRef:57] When LRA 1967 enfranchisement is sought, the subject property must be capable of providing occupants with a residence, irrespective of its physical appearance or character. Buildings used solely for commercial purposes cannot be a house. These must be a ?property is fit for immediate residential occupation?.[footnoteRef:58] [56: Day v Hosebay Ltd [2012] UKSC 41; [2012] 1 W.L.R (SC).] [57: Ibid, [41], [43].] [58: Boss Holdings Ltd v Grosvenor West End Properties Ltd [2008] UKHL 5; [2008] 1 W.L.R. 289 HL),

Open Document