Trusts of land

Creation

Trusts of land may:

  1. be created expressly (section 53(1)(b) of the Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA 1925) requires that any declaration of trust ‘must be manifested and proved by some writing signed by some person who is able to declare such trust’): the declaration of trust may be contained in a transfer to the registered proprietors, in a separate trust deed, or in a separate (less formal) document, or

  2. arise from the parties' conduct, or

  3. be imposed by statute, eg where land is transferred to two or more persons (LPA 1925, ss 34, 36)

The register maintained by HM Land Registry records the ownership of the legal estate in the land. The register does not record the beneficial (equitable) interest (ownership of which may or may not be the same as the legal interest): accordingly the Land Registrar is not affected with notice of a trust and details of any trust will not be entered on the register. However, the rights of beneficiaries may be protected by an appropriate entry on the register

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Property News

Occupiers’ liability and the threshold test for duty of care (Lillystone v Bradgate)

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: Upon appeal, the High Court found that a claimant casual footballer paying to play a ‘knockabout’ game at school premises where there were no arrangements in place to retrieve a ball kicked out of play into another part of the defendant’s sports facilities (adjacent sports playing fields) caused his own injury when he climbed a 2.1m gate and severely lacerated his hand. The claimant was a trespasser while climbing the gate between two adjacent parts of the premises where he was not a trespasser. The defendant’s duty of care did not extend to providing any system or facilities to aid ball retrievable, despite the trial judge’s findings that doing nothing and waiting was ‘not what football players would do’. The threshold test imposing a duty of care was not met because the claimant decided to climb the locked gate to gain access to adjacent playing fields. What amounts to ‘reasonable’ safety of visitors under section 2(2) and (5) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 (OLA 1957) appears to fall firmly within the characteristics equating to a definition of ‘reasonable’ amounting to ‘adequate’, rather than equating to the dictionary definition of reasonable ‘based on or using good judgment and therefore fair and practical’. On the facts and circumstances of this case the sports premises were safe, despite there being no facility for ball retrieval. The danger to the claimant only arose because the claimant decided to take a risk to climb a gate that was an obvious danger. Written by Abigail Holt, barrister at Garden Court Chambers.

View Property by content type :

Popular documents