Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v London Residuary Body [1991] UKHL 10 is an English land law case, confirming and explaining the requirements of certainty of duration of any lease.
Prudential plead it had a valid limitless tenancy/lease and strictly (outside of say compulsory purchase for wider development) the LRB could only get possession if needed to widen the road.
Prudential stressed if Nathan had known he would need to pay a market rate access charge to continue to enjoy the pavement/front yard he would never had sold it to the local authority.
LRB used the leapfrog procedure to go directly to the House of Lords, as it wished to challenge the Court of Appeal cases, In re Midland Railway Co’s Agreement and Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold.
[1] The bizarre outcome results from the application of an ancient and technical rule of law which requires the maximum duration of a term of years to be ascertainable from the outset.