Добавил:
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Экзамен зачет учебный год 2023 / van der Merwe, Time Limited Interests in Land.pdf
Скачиваний:
31
Добавлен:
21.12.2022
Размер:
3.55 Mб
Скачать

c a s e 1 : i n s t a n c e s o f t i m e - l i m i t e d i n t e r e s t s

77

permanent arrangement. An example is where the prospective precarist has entered into negotiations for the lease of another property in six months’ time, but is awaiting the finalisation of the lease, or in a situation where the landowner has received a notice of expropriation which may only be implemented in another year’s time or where the landowner plans to demolish the property within a year. For the contract to be a precarium and thus not subject to the protective rules applying to residential, commercial or agricultural leases, strict conditions apply. Among others, it must be the joint intention of the parties to create such a temporary contract.

Denmark

Different sets of rules are relevant depending on which kind of property the right concerns. It is also of great importance how the contract is categorised. The main focus will be on contracts of synallagmatic nature, that is, where the parties to the contract both have rights and obligations. Contracts on accommodation and support (habitatio and the right of usufruct) provided by the new owner of immovable property for its former owner, especially by a child for his/her parents, are normally considered to be synallagmatic and are as such covered by the provisions of the Law on Private Housing.50 It cannot be ruled out, though, that some of these agreements are too atypical to be considered as falling under the auspices of the law. In that case, and in situations of contracts of gratuitous nature, no statutory law applies. Only the provisions of the contract and the interpretation thereof are of importance. Contracts of this kind will be treated as contracts regarding land, even though buildings are also involved, and the same rules will apply.

If B obtains the right to exploit land, the parties are free to regulate such right by almost any contractual terms. Contracts can be created for an indefinite period or be limited in time to a term agreed to by the parties. If the contract is for an indefinite period, each party can end the contract by giving notice of reasonable length,51 unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. If the duration of the contract is fixed, it will expire on the agreed date. Contracts limited in time will normally be

50See Krag Jespersen, Lejeret, vol. 1, pp. 61–3 and Western High Court decisions of 3 Dec. 1976 (UfR (1977), p. 343) and of 4 June 2003 (UfR (2003), p. 2171).

51The rule of UNIDROIT Principles Art. 5.1.1 and Principles on European Contract Law Art. 6:109 apply.

78

c a s e s t u d i e s

considered irrevocable.52 If the land in question has a title number in the Land Register, the time limit may not exceed thirty years53 (ten years if the land in question is part of a portion of land without title number) (Law on Subdivision of Land,54 s. 16 and Law on Farms, s. 28).55 The Law on Farms, s. 27 prescribes similar restrictions when a farm is rented in its entirety. The length of such a contract must not exceed thirty years. There are no formal requirements for the formation of the contract.

In the case of a lease of a building for residential purposes, the contract will be regulated by the Law on Private Housing56 and the Law on Farms, ss. 27 and 28. The owner (A) will normally retain permanent residence on the farm (Law on Farms, s. 8). The lease can be for an indefinite period, in which case the tenant can terminate the contract by giving three months’ notice, unless the parties have agreed that the contract is irrevocable or have agreed on a shorter or longer period of notice (Law on Private Housing, s. 81). The landlord (A) can terminate the contract by notice in only a very limited number of situations regulated by the mandatory and exhaustive rules of the Law on Private Housing, s. 83. The Law on Farms, s. 28(3) gives the landlord the opportunity to terminate the contract with a six-month notice if he/she needs the buildings for a permanent residence on the farm. The lease can be for a fixed period (Law on Private Housing, s. 80) but this can be overruled if the landlord’s reasons for fixing the period are not justifiable (Law on Private Housing, s. 80(3)). If this happens, the lease would be for an indefinite term. The parties to a fixed-term contract can include a clause in the contract that the lease may be terminated by notice of a certain length of time. If the contract does not concern a farm in its entirety, the contract must not exceed thirty years (Law on Farms, s. 28(1)). No formal requirements are to be met for the formation of the contract, but it must be in writing if one of the parties insists (Law on Private Housing, s. 4(1)).

In the case of a lease of a building for non-residential purposes, the Law on the Lease of Commercial Premises57 applies in combination with the

52See Gomard, Obligationsret, p. 17. This is not an operative rule but an assumption.

53According to court practice, it will suffice if it is possible to end the contract with thirty years’ notice: see Eastern High Court decision of 26 Mar. 1998 (UfR (1998), p. 1011).

54Consolidated Act no. 494 of 12 June 2003 and later amendments.

55Consolidated Act no. 1202 of 9 Oct. 2007.

56Consolidated Act no. 188 of 27 Feb. 2007 and later amendments available, in an unofficial translation, at www.english.ism.dk/MinistryOfSocialWelfare/legislation/ social_affairs/rent/Sider/Start.aspx.

57Act no. 934 of 20 Dec. 1999 and later amendments.

c a s e 1 : i n s t a n c e s o f t i m e - l i m i t e d i n t e r e s t s

79

Law on Farms, ss. 27 and 28. The rules on termination of contracts for an indefinite period are very similar to the rules concerning lease for residential purposes (Law on Commercial Premises, ss. 60–3). However, the tenant will sometimes be entitled to compensation where the landlord terminates the contract on notice (Law on Commercial Premises, s. 66), but this rule is not mandatory. If the contract is for a fixed period, a rule identical to the rule under the Law on Private Housing, s. 80 is to be found in the Law on Commercial Premises, s. 63. If the contract does not concern a farm in its entirety, the contract must not exceed thirty years (Law on Farms, s. 28(1)). As in the other cases, there are no formal rules on the formation of the contract. However, the contract must be executed in writing if any party so demands (Law on Farms, s. 5).

In combined contracts, where the contract between A and B concerns land and buildings, the statutes concerning the lease of buildings will apply only if the buildings are the most essential part of the contract. The Law on Private Housing will apply if access to a residence is considered to be the most important part of the agreement. If the right of using buildings for other purposes is the major part of the agreement, the provisions of the Law on Lease of Commercial Premises will regulate the contract in its entirety. If the use of land is the substantial part of the contract, the Law on Farms regulates the relationship between the parties.

England

Under the common law, one speaks of ownership not of the land itself but of an ‘estate in land’. Ownership of an estate in land entitles one to exclusive possession over that land for a period of time. After the enactment of the Law of Property Act 1925, only two forms of estate may be owned:

(a)the fee simple, absolute in possession (a right to exclusive possession forever – in practical terms, ownership); or

(b)a term of years absolute (a right to exclusive possession for a period of time).58

The latter is a ‘lease’ in the English sense. It is by far the most common way in which time-limited interests are created over land today. In order

58 Law of Property Act 1925, s. 1(1)(a) and (b).

80

c a s e s t u d i e s

for it to be a valid lease, the ‘term’ (length) of the lease must be certain. This can be achieved in two ways: either the lease is given for a set period of time or until a fixed date, after which the lease comes to an end, or it is granted in some smaller increment (a week or a month is common in residential lettings), which will recur until brought to an end by one of the parties. The former is a so-called ‘fixed term’ and the latter a ‘periodic’ tenancy. It is trite law that the lease must also grant the right to exclusive possession of the land (this is sometimes called the ‘hallmark of the lease’). It would seem not to be essential, however, that rent be payable.59

When discussing leases, the distinction made between law and equity in English real property law, though largely irrelevant in our modern age of registration, becomes unavoidable. To understand this distinction, it is necessary to distinguish between three possible cumulative formality hurdles or stages which one might encounter when creating a lease. Parties to a lease may:

(a)enter into a contract to agree to the grant of the lease, which must be in writing (Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 (hereafter LP(MP)A) s 2);

(b)transfer (or ‘grant’) the lease; and

(c)ensure any necessary publicity requirements are fulfilled (as to which, see below).

It is not necessary to contract to grant a lease, though it might suit the parties commercially to enter into a separate agreement to lease. These agreements are frequently encountered in commercial leases, for instance, where obligations are imposed before the commencement of the lease or are outside the remit of the landlord and tenant relationship. Accordingly, stage one may be totally bypassed. If, however, the parties do enter into a written contract complying with the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, such a contract will be specifically enforceable at equity, and an equitable lease will have been created.60 Most parties will not, however, undertake stage one without moving on to stage two, so that equitable leases are not frequently encountered in practice.

At stage two, a lease can be granted in two ways. The basic position is that a lease must be granted by deed (Law of Property Act 1925, s. 52). It is possible in limited circumstances to grant leases orally (Law of

59 Law of Property Act 1925, s. 205 (xxvii). 60 Walsh v. Lonsdale (1882) 21 ChD 9.

c a s e 1 : i n s t a n c e s o f t i m e - l i m i t e d i n t e r e s t s

81

Property Act, ss. 52(2)(d) and 54(2)). Leases may be granted orally (by ‘parol’) if they are leases for a term not exceeding three years at best market rent, reasonably obtainable without taking a fine. In practice, and for obvious pragmatic reasons, short leases are usually accompanied by a written agreement to evidence the terms thereof.

At stage three, one must distinguish between registered and unregistered land. In England, there are at present two systems of publicity available. The older (and much less important) system of unregistered land depends on presenting title deeds (‘stage two documents’) to prove ownership. Furthermore, those interests that are legal in nature bind the world. Those that are equitable bind everyone except the bona Þde purchaser for value of a legal estate without notice. Excepted from that general category of equitable interests are so-called ‘land charges’, which must be placed on the Land Charges Register. This is a special register of burdens as specified in the Land Charges Act 1972. Equitable leases, being based on contracts for the sale of land, fall within Class C (iv) land charges, as defined in section 2(4) of that Act, and are void against third-party purchasers, unless registered as Land Charges (s 4(6)). Leases which have complied with stage two are legal leases in unregistered land, and bind the world.

With registered land, matters are rather different. Since 1926 (the year the Land Registration Act 1925 came into force), England has had a system of registered title, whereby the Register could be consulted by the public to see who owned what estate, and what rights and burdens were attached to such land. That system has been updated. Over 95 per cent or so of land in England is registered. In light of this, registered land will be concentrated upon. The matter is now dealt with under the new Land Registration Act 2002 in the following manner:61

(a)Equitable leases can be protected by placing notice thereof on the registered title of the land in respect of which they are granted (see generally ss. 32 ff.). If they are not so protected, it would seem that they can still bind if, at the time of the purchase, the owner of the equitable lease is in actual occupation of the land (Schedule 3(2)). Failure to do so renders the right unenforceable in any circumstances.

(b)Leases which have complied with any relevant stage two formalities, but which do not exceed seven years in term length, will bind

61See also s. 93 of the Act for the rules relating to electronic conveyancing, once this becomes the norm.

82c a s e s t u d i e s

purchasers of the registered land even if not entered onto the Register (Schedule 3(1)).

(c)Leases over seven years will have to be registered under their own title (s 4(1)(c)). Failure to register means that the leases have no effect at law

(s 27(2)(b)). They will then only have effect at equity, and must be protected in the same way as those rights in (a).62

There are a number of methods by which a lease can come to an end.63 The main ones are:

(a)effluxion of time under fixed term tenancies;

(b)giving a notice to quit under a periodic tenancy;

(c)exercise of a ‘break clause’, that is the right, conferred by contract, to end the lease;

(d)forfeiture of the lease;

(e)surrender of the lease by the tenant to the landlord (an act requiring mutuality between the parties);

(f)frustration under the lease – though this will only occur very rarely; and

(g)disclaimer of a lease in the case of bankruptcy or insolvency.

It is important to note that the two methods of terminating leases in (a) and (b) above are seldom effective to bring the relationship of landlord and tenant to an end. This is because most leases today are governed by one or other statutory code.64 These statutory codes generally aim to protect the tenant (by conferring upon him ‘security of tenure’), so that the lease cannot be terminated by notice at common law, but only by a statutory notice, generally specifying some reason (a statutory ‘ground’ or ‘case’)65 why possession is being sought by the landlord. Absent such a reason, no claim for possession may be sought.

The other significant termination method, and the only other one which requires elaboration, is forfeiture.66 A well-drafted lease will

62As to which, see Bignell and Harpum, Registered Land, paras. 3–11 ff.

63The full law relating to the termination of tenancies is too complex to deal with here. Those interested in the minutiae are referred to Lewison, WoodfallÕs Law of Landlord and Tenant, paras. 17–21 to 17–96.

64Modern private residential leases: Housing Act 1988 (creating the assured and the assured shorthold tenancy); older private residential leases: Rent Act 1977; public residential leases: Housing Act 1985; business tenancies: Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (as amended); agricultural tenancies: a mosaic of statutes, but the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 and the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995 are often encountered.

65These vary from statute to statute, but rent arrears, misconduct by the tenant or some pressing need by the landlord can frequently be encountered.

66See Land Registration Act, s. 146 (for breaches other than non-payment of rent).

c a s e 1 : i n s t a n c e s o f t i m e - l i m i t e d i n t e r e s t s

83

contain a ‘proviso for re-entry’, stipulating that the landlord may reenter the premises (thereby ending the lease) for certain breaches specified in the proviso (but not for those left out). The law then distinguishes between forfeiture for non-payment of rent on the one hand, and for other breaches on the other. If the breach complained of is that rent has not been paid, the landlord may retake possession, provided the rent has been formally demanded (or the lease has dispensed with that requirement) and the tenant has been in arrears for at least six months.67 Forfeiture for non-payment of rent is governed by section 146 of the Law of Property Act 1925. The effect of this is that, prior to reentering, the landlord must serve a notice to give the tenant a reasonable time to remedy any breaches of covenant in so far as they are remediable. Disrepair is a remedial breach. Sub-letting contrary to a covenant is irremediable (and the only breach which is).68

Other use rights which give the right to occupy or otherwise exploit land can be dealt with more briefly. First, there are licences. These are essentially permission for others to be on the land. They may be bare permissions, or may be permissions strengthened by contract and subject to contractual remedies (most notably specific enforcement in some circumstances). They are not properly considered rights in land, however, and are merely personal in nature.69 Further, a beneficiary under a trust of land may be permitted to occupy the land held on trust in certain circumstances.70 While the beneficial interest is commonly thought to be an equitable property right, the right to occupy is contingent on the decision of the trustees exercising their discretion to permit it to be occupied. That occupation may then be time-limited in some sense. This is not a mechanism found in practice. Finally, the House of Lords71 recently found that it is possible to have a purely contractual lease which does not confer an estate in land, but which does confer some right to exclusive possession, probably (but this is not settled) against the landlord. While the case has been viewed critically in England, it has not been overruled, but nor has it, to the knowledge of this writer, been applied.

An English institution similar to civilian usufruct72 was introduced by the Settled Land Act 1882. This statute gave significant powers to a

67See County Courts Act 1984, s. 139; Common Law Procedure Act 1852, s. 210.

68Scala House v. Forbes [1974] QB 575. 69 See Ashburn Anstalt v. Arnold [1989] ch. 1.

70See ss. 12 and 13 of the Law on Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees 1996.

71Bruton v. London and Quadrant Housing Association [2000] AC 406.

72The editors are indebted to Dr Xu Lu from the University of East Anglia for this part of

the English report.

84

c a s e s t u d i e s

‘tenant for life’ (or ‘life tenant’), including sale, leasing, mortgaging and otherwise dealing with the land.73 This interest, known as a ‘strict settlement’, was capable of being a separate legal estate at the time, independent of the fee simple estate held by the persons entitled to the property after their death. This was probably the closest to a proper liferent (or civilian usufruct) that English law has ever offered.

Some significant changes were introduced by the Birkenhead legislation of 1925, most noticeably the Law of Property Act 1925 and the Settled Land Act 1925. A strict settlement ceased to be a legal estate thereon and would have to take effect in equity.74 The life tenant would have the legal estate vested in him/her and act as the trustee of the property,75 holding it in trust for the benefit of the person entitled to it in remainder (that is, after the death of the life tenant). The life tenant was entitled to enjoy the profit and income from the property, or even to sell the property as the legal owner and trustee. His/her only obligation was owed to the beneficiary in accounting for the payment of capital money received.76 The capital money was then treated as if this was the land in terms of its enjoyment during the life of the life tenant and its distribution after his/her death.

This form of strict settlement can no longer be created after January 1 1997, when the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 came into force.77 Because the previous form was essentially analogous to a trust, it was then merged with the other type of trust, a ‘trust for sale’, that existed before the above-mentioned Act. Settlements created before 1997 continued to be governed by the 1925 Act. The expectation was obviously that this concept will die alongside the life tenants. Therefore, after 1997, only one form of trust involving land can be created, namely the ‘trust of land’. Whether the trustee is a ‘life tenant’ or not in the mind of the settlor who created the trust, is irrelevant, or at least not given any differentiating treatment by law. ‘Trustees of land’ have in relation to land all the powers of an absolute owner.78 The

73Harpum, Bridges and Dixon, Megarry and Wade: Property, para. 10-006.

74Law of Property Act 1925, s. 1(1) only recognised two legal estates, namely the ‘fee simple absolute, in possession’ (freehold) and the ‘term of years absolute’ (leasehold). S. 1(3) provided that all other interests in land could only take effect in equity.

75Harpum, Bridges and Dixon, Megarry and Wade: Property, para. A-055. There are, however, ‘trustees of settlement’, which are quite distinct from the position of the life tenant as a trustee: see Settled Land Act 1925, s. 30.

76Settled Land Act 1925, s. 18. 77 s. 2(1).

78 Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996, s. 6.