1. The Importance of Theory in Property Law and Practice
Martin George
Associate Professor of Property Law
University of Leicester

3. Assessment: single best answer multiple choice

5. Is it the purpose of a university legal education to teach our students about right answers?

6. Are there ‘right answers’?

7. Q: In August 2007, a woman broke into a house owned by a man with the intention of squatting in it. In January 2014, the man discovered her there, and he shouted through the window that ‘she could stay there until he needed it.’ She did not reply. In September 2017, the woman applied to the Land Registry for title by adverse possession of the house. Which statement best describes the probable legal outcome? 1) The woman will succeed in registering title to the house. 2) The woman will not succeed in registering title to the house.

8. conceptual: the right to possession the effect of permission by owner on possessor’s rights the relevance of the intention of owner on possessor’s rights

9. theory: ownership right to exclude right to possess

10. Smith v Molyneaux [2016] UKPC 35

11. TR1:

15. Four friends (all over 18 years old) bought an hotel which they planned to run together as a commercial enterprise. They each paid £100,000 towards the purchase price of £400, Which of the following statements best explains how the parties hold the property? 1. They are joint tenants in law and equity because they paid the same amount towards the purchase price. 2. They are tenants in common in law and equity because they paid the same amount towards the purchase price. 3. They are joint tenants in law but tenants in common in equity because they bought the property as a business. 4. They are joint tenants in law but tenants in common in equity because they are all over 18 years old. 5. They are tenants in common in law and equity because land cannot be held as joint tenants.

16. Marr v Collie [2017] UKPC 17

17. 53. If what Lady Hale described as a “starting point” (that joint legal ownership should signify joint beneficial ownership) is to be regarded as a presumption, is it in conflict with the presumption of a resulting trust where the parties have contributed unequally to the purchase of property in their joint names? A simplistic answer to that question might be that, if the property is purchased in joint names by parties in a domestic relationship the presumption of joint beneficial ownership applies but if bought in a wholly non-domestic situation it does not. In the latter case, it might be said that the resulting trust presumption obtains. 54.  The Board considers that, save perhaps where there is no evidence from which the parties’ intentions can be identified, the answer is not to be provided by the triumph of one presumption over another. In this, as in so many areas of law, context counts for, if not everything, a lot. Context here is set by the parties’ common intention - or by the lack of it. If it is the unambiguous mutual wish of the parties, contributing in unequal shares to the purchase of property, that the joint beneficial ownership should reflect their joint legal ownership, then effect should be given to that wish. If, on the other hand, that is not their wish, or if they have not formed any intention as to beneficial ownership but had, for instance, accepted advice that the property be acquired in joint names, without considering or being aware of the possible consequences of that, the resulting trust solution may provide the answer.