The paper "Informal Arrangement to Park Bartholomews Car on Ravis Driveway" is a perfect example of finance and accounting coursework. In order to advise Angelina with regard to the potential third party rights in the Hatfield Property (“ the Property” ) it will be necessary to evaluate the nature of the right (whether equitable or non-equitable) and on the assumption that the Property is registered, the provisions of the Land Registration Act 2002 (“ LRA). The LRA sets out the requirements regarding the registration of third-party rights and the extent to which such rights bind the interests of the purchaser.
The LRA distinguishes third party rights that are required to be registered and those that are considered overriding. As a general rule, the prior estate will have priority over the buyer subject to the exceptions in the LRA. Under the LRA, if a right is subject to the requirement of registration in order to have priority, (unless the right is an overriding interest under Schedule 3), failure to register will forfeit priority and the right will not bind a purchaser on a disposition. However, the right may still be enforceable subject to the principles of equity and I shall consider any potential equitable rights when considering Angelina’ s legal position. (i) Informal arrangement to park Bartholomew’ s car on Ravi’ s driveway. With regard to the current informal arrangement enabling Bartholomew to park his two cars on Ravi’ s driveway, the central issues are the nature of the right to be granted under any proposed formal arrangement and ensuring that the formalised arrangement is binding on third parties. Under section 1(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925, an easement such as a right of way can be created at law however the current informal arrangement fails to comply with the legal requirements and as such, operates as an equitable easement.
Furthermore, under the 2002 LRA, equitable easements no longer constitute overriding interests on third parties. With regard to the formal arrangement, the right of way must be recorded in a deed and a legal easement must be defined, in terms of duration of the entitlement, in analogy with either a freehold or a leasehold estate; either with no limit of time or for a fixed period.
It is arguable that ‘ until such time when P sells his property’ complies with this.
Blackstone’s Statutes on Property Law., (2007-2008). 15th Edition Oxford University Press.
M. Dixon (2005) “Principles of Land Law”, 5th Edition. Routledge –Cavendish Publishing
A J Oakley (2001) Megarry’s Manual of the Law of Real Property 8th. Sweet & Maxwell
R J Smith (2003) Property Law 4th Edition, Longman
R J Smith (2003) Property Law Cases & Materials 2nd Edition, Longman
Megarry and Wade., (2007) The Law of Real Property. 7th Edition Sweet & Maxwell
J MacKenzie& M Phillips (2005). Land Law. 10th Edition Oxford University Press.
Austerberry v Corporation of Oldham(1885) 29 Ch D 750.
BCCI v Akindele,  Ch 437
Birrell v Carey 1989 58 P & CR 184
Bull v.Bull  1 QB 234.
Chhokar v Chhokar (1984) FLR 313
Congregational Christian Church v Iosefa Tauga 1982 8 Comm Law Bull 129
Federated Homes Ltd v Mill Lodge Properties Limited  1 WLR 594.
Halsall v Brizell  Ch 169.
Haywood v Brunswick Permanent Benefit BS (1881) 8 QBD 403
London & South Western Railway Co v Gomm (1882) 20 Ch D 562
Marten v Flight Refuelling Limited  Ch 115.
Miles v Easter  Ch 611.
Newton Abbot Co-operative Society Ltd v Williamson & Treadgold Ltd  Ch 286
Roake v Chadha  1 WLR 594.
Rhone v Stephens  2 AC 310.
Rogers v Hosegood  1 Ch 388.
Spencer’s Case (1582) 5 Co Rep 16a
Tulk v Moxhay (1848) 2 Ph 774.