Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

Dissenting beneficiary.

Land, Registered Land, Planning law etc.

Re: Dissenting beneficiary.

Postby atticus » Thu Sep 14, 2017 4:31 pm

I am reading the Blackburne judgment on a larger screen. Paras 44 onwards should be read very carefully. (Another point: the Hodge judgment was extempore, Blackburne's reserved - reserved judgments are generally considered better authority than those deliverd 'off the cuff' at the end of a trial.)

Paras 50-51 help explain why Taylor v Couch is difficult as a case to rely on.

NB the first sentence of para 49 which includes "at any rate, until much higher authority decides otherwise", going on to explain the difference between an option and a right of pre-emption.

Final point. Blackburne (para 59) does not say that Parliament made a particular assumption. He says that the contrary case may be explained on the basis of such an assumption: a different thing. In any event, if Parliament so assumed, it drafted its words poorly. Given that Pritchard was decided in 1980, Parliament has not rushed to pass amending legislation.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19706
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Dissenting beneficiary.

Postby atticus » Thu Sep 14, 2017 4:34 pm

Is the right of pre-emption registered against the title to the land in question?
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19706
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Dissenting beneficiary.

Postby Hairyloon » Thu Sep 14, 2017 4:46 pm

atticus wrote:Is the right of pre-emption registered against the title to the land in question?

The land is not registered. There is an obligation to not sell without making the offer written in the deeds.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10018
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Dissenting beneficiary.

Postby Hairyloon » Thu Sep 14, 2017 5:09 pm

atticus wrote:NB the first sentence of para 49 which includes "at any rate, until much higher authority decides otherwise", going on to explain the difference between an option and a right of pre-emption.

Blackburne wrote:an option to acquire for valuable consideration an interest in land is different from a right of pre-emption in that from its inception the former confers on the grantee an immediate equitable interest in the grantor's land (and not merely when the option is exercised) whereas the latter does not

If an option confers the immediate interest that he says it does, then the option is not an option to confer that interest: that interest has already been conferred.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10018
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Dissenting beneficiary.

Postby Hairyloon » Thu Sep 14, 2017 5:15 pm

atticus wrote:Given that Pritchard was decided in 1980, Parliament has not rushed to pass amending legislation.

They have written a new Perpetuities and Accumulations Act...

What was the High Court ruling in Pritchard? Anybody here know?
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10018
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Dissenting beneficiary.

Postby atticus » Thu Sep 14, 2017 5:27 pm

Does anyone claim that that new Act addressed this point?

Blackburne J described the effect of the Pritchard decision in para 49, as you have read.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19706
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Dissenting beneficiary.

Postby Hairyloon » Thu Sep 14, 2017 5:48 pm

atticus wrote:Does anyone claim that that new Act addressed this point?

Which point are you referring to precisely? Do you mean the effect of Pritchard on the interpretation of the Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 1964 in respect of rights of pre-emption?
How often has that cropped up, such that parliament should rush to clarify it?
Blackburne J described the effect of the Pritchard decision in para 49, as you have read.

I have, but I would still like to see the decision itself, and to know what was the decision being appealed at that decision.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10018
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Dissenting beneficiary.

Postby atticus » Thu Sep 14, 2017 6:02 pm

User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19706
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Dissenting beneficiary.

Postby theycantdothat » Thu Sep 14, 2017 8:14 pm

Hairyloon wrote:The land is not registered. There is an obligation to not sell without making the offer written in the deeds.


If the land is not registered the right needs to be protected by registration at the Land Charges Registry. Failure to register means the right is void as against a purchaser for money or money’s worth.
theycantdothat
 
Posts: 1145
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 7:36 pm

Re: Dissenting beneficiary.

Postby Hairyloon » Thu Sep 14, 2017 8:28 pm

atticus wrote:http://swarb.co.uk/pritchard-v-briggs-ca-1980/

Thanks, but that is only a summary, and adds to the confusion.

If anything, it affirms my conviction that the judgment is being held as binding beyond where it is proper to do so.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10018
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

PreviousNext

Return to Land Law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron