The moral philosopher and father of economics, Adam Smith, reflected these changes as he argued in The Wealth of Nations that landowners position allowed them to extract rents from others in return for very little.
The best form of property would involve exclusive possession, and it usually bound anyone who attempted to interfere with an owner's use, particularly in cases of insolvency, if other people with interests in the land sold their stake to a third party, or in getting remedies to enforce one's right.
[46] In the third dimension, as section 205(1)(ix) points out, mines and sub-surface things, belong to the surface owner, and up to a general limit of 500 feet,[47] the landowner will have a right to the atmosphere above his land as well.
[53] It is most used in favour of people, typically a spouse in a family home whose name is not on the title deeds, who have not registered an interest because the law has recognised they have acquired a right, not through a formal, or express contract, or gift – but by their contributions, or their reliance on another person's assurances.
In both cases the court held that because the buyers could not have got the house without the loan, there had been tacit consent by all to the bank taking priority, and no gap in time before registration when the spouse could have been said to be in prior actual occupancy.
The House of Lords held that because the words of the statute were fulfilled, and the purchase money for the interest in the property (i.e. the loan that the children squandered) had been paid to two trustees, the Fleggs had to give up possession.
Being a bona fide purchaser was an "absolute, unqualified, unanswerable defence",[61] so that the person with an equitable interest would only have an enforceable right against the traceable assets received in return for the land.
[66] The general scheme of the law was to do everything possible to ensure that people were not deprived of their stakes in their homes without their fully informed and true consent, yet it stopped short of simply determining that equitable rights were always binding.
Lord Denning MR in the Court of Appeal held that because they had continued life as a joint venture, even though she had made no quantifiable money contribution, nevertheless Mrs Gissing would have a half share in the property under a constructive trust.
By contrast, the factual pattern of estoppels, which often appear something very close to a contract, often seem to warrant more than an award for damages to compensate claimants for the amount of detriment, or loss, as in a tort case.
In Jennings v Rice, Robert Walker LJ tackled the issue by emphasising that the purpose of the court's jurisdiction was to avoid an unconscionable result, and to ensure that a remedy was based on proportionality.
The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, which allowed tenants to purchase properties from their private landlords, was within a member state's margin of appreciation.
This has not been followed in most of the British Commonwealth,[121] and in Grape Bay Ltd v Attorney General of Bermuda[122] the Privy Council advised that a decision by a democratic legislature is better than a court to determine issues of social and economic policy in relation to property.
Here, McDonald's attempted to sue Bermuda for passing legislation to prevent it opening a restaurant as a breach of "property rights" under the Bermudan constitution, which it said consisted in the expectation of being able to run a business and various contractual arrangements to that end.
Lord Hoffmann held that there was no such violation of property, noting that the "give and take of civil society frequently requires that the exercise of private rights should be restricted in the general public interest."
Mr Powell lost his claim because simply letting his cows roam was an equivocal act: it was only later that there was evidence he intended to take possession, for instance by erecting signs on the land and parking a lorry.
A notice will be considered effective, or "served" under Law of Property Act 1925 section 196 when it is left at a person's home or office, or if posted and so long as it does not go undelivered (in contrast to the postal rule) when it would ordinarily arrive.
Then, in Errington v Wood,[155] it was held that when a father gave contractual licence to his son and daughter in law to remain in a Newcastle upon Tyne home till they paid the mortgage, and that the house would become theirs when they did, this became irrevocable.
According to Lord Templeman in AG Securities v Vaughan, if people could contract out of them, any statutory protections "would be a dead letter because in a state of housing shortage a person seeking residential accommodation may agree to anything to obtain shelter.
Along with pledges, liens and equitable charges, English law counts a mortgage as one of four main kinds of security interest, whereby a proprietary right that binds third parties is said to arise on conclusion of a contract.
Alternatively, if despite independent advice, a spouse is still unduly influenced or is misrepresented the facts, he or she will have no recourse against a bank selling the home, but may have a claim against the solicitor for professional negligence.
Salmon LJ emphasised that because the borrower will still be liable for sums on a loan if a house is undersold, because the "mortgagor is vitally affected by the result of the sale", an obligation is owed to get "the true market value."
[193] The quality of life for the vast majority of people is closely connected to rules on planning, home building and rent regulation, food, forest and water enterprises, and the protection of the environment and climate in replacing gas, oil and coal with clean energy.
[196] In response, as Parliament was opened to universal suffrage, local councils acquired more powers "to prevent inappropriate development and protect the environment" to ensure that land law will add "to the benefit of the whole community.
Unlike other countries, UK national parks have substantial private ownership, but there are more restrictive planning laws to safeguard natural beauty, and guarantee public rights of way.
In Bocardo SA v Star Energy UK Onshore Ltd, the Supreme Court did hold that a landowner may sue a company for trespass if it drills under its land without permission, but a majority held that damages will be nominal.
In ancient Athens, according to Plato, in his ideal Republic everything should be owned in common, and "the notion of "private property" will have been by hook or crook completely eliminated from life".
[235] Whatever the theory, the laws of ancient Britain and medieval Europe concentrated all political power, and most property, in the hands of emperors and kings, but after the reinaissance writers began to challenge this premise.
[240] Despite the theory of Garrett Hardin that common property would be overused or squandered and result in "tragedy", modern empirical evidence particularly from Elinor Ostrom tended to show that public and community-managed resources would set up democratic governance structures that ensured they were well managed.
[242] This idea of a strict division is often seen to have collapsed over the 19th century as more social and legal change ensured greater rights for workers, tenants and traders relating to insolvent companies.