| Boyd v. Mayor of Wellington | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Court of Appeal of New Zealand |
| Decided | 1924 |
| Citation | [1924] NZLR 1174 |
| Transcript | http://www.nzlii.org/cgi-bin/sinodisp/nz/cases/NZGazLawRp/1924/58.html |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Adams J, Stout CJ, Sim J, Stringer J, Salmond J |
| Keywords | |
| mistake, indefeasibility of title | |
Boyd v. Mayor of Wellington [1924] NZLR 1174 is a leading case law in New Zealand on the concept of indefeasibility of title. [1]
The plaintiff in this case, Mr, Boyd, owned a parcel of land in Wellington until in 1917 the local council compulsorily acquired the land under the Public Works Act [1908] to build part of the Wellington tramway system.
After the council was registered as the new owner of this property, it came to the plaintiff's attention that because there was an existing building on the property, the council had no legal right to acquire the property without the owner's consent.
The plaintiff took legal action against the council to return the land back to his ownership.
The court ruled in favor of the council, as the transfer was not obtained due to fraud, i.e. the council was not aware at the time that it needed the owners consent, but rather to oversight by the council, and this meant that the Wellington City Council had an indefeasible title to the property.
Footnote: Had this claim not been about real estate, it is likely that the decision would have been different.
Trespass is an area of tort law broadly divided into three groups: trespass to the person, trespass to chattels, and trespass to land.
Adverse possession, sometimes colloquially described as "squatter's rights", is a legal principle in common law under which a person who does not have legal title to a piece of property—usually land —may acquire legal ownership based on continuous possession or occupation of the property without the permission (licence) of its legal owner.
In United States law, a lis pendens is a written notice that a lawsuit has been filed concerning real estate, involving either the title to the property or a claimed ownership interest in it. The notice is usually filed in the county land records office. Recording a lis pendens against a piece of property alerts a potential purchaser or lender that the property’s title is in question, which makes the property less attractive to a buyer or lender. Once the notice is filed, the legal title of anyone who purchases the land or property described in the notice is subject to the outcome of the lawsuit.
Torrens title is a land registration and land transfer system, in which a state creates and maintains a register of land holdings, which serves as the conclusive evidence of title of the person recorded on the register as the proprietor (owner), and of all other interests recorded on the register.
In trust law, a constructive trust is an equitable remedy imposed by a court to benefit a party that has been wrongfully deprived of its rights due to either a person obtaining or holding a legal property right which they should not possess due to unjust enrichment or interference, or due to a breach of fiduciary duty, which is intercausative with unjust enrichment and/or property interference. It is a type of implied trust.
Volenti non fit iniuria is a Roman legal maxim and common law doctrine which states that if someone willingly places themselves in a position where harm might result, knowing that some degree of harm might result, they are not able to bring a claim against the other party in tort or delict. Volenti applies only to the risk which a reasonable person would consider them as having assumed by their actions; thus a boxer consents to being hit, and to the injuries that might be expected from being hit, but does not consent to his opponent striking him with an iron bar, or punching him outside the usual terms of boxing. Volenti is also known as a "voluntary assumption of risk".
Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd, also known as the Gove land rights case because its subject was land known as the Gove Peninsula in the Northern Territory, was the first litigation on native title in Australia, and the first significant legal case for Aboriginal land rights in Australia, decided on 27 April 1971.
R v Hinks [2000] UKHL 53 is an English case heard by the House of Lords on appeal from the Court of Appeal of England and Wales. The case concerned the interpretation of the word "appropriates" in the Theft Act 1968. The relevant statute is as follows:
Sturges v Bridgman (1879) LR 11 Ch D 852 is a landmark case in nuisance decided by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales. It decides that what constitutes reasonable use of one's property depends on the character of the locality and that it is no defence that the plaintiff "came to the nuisance".
Conversion is an intentional tort consisting of "taking with the intent of exercising over the chattel an ownership inconsistent with the real owner's right of possession". In England and Wales, it is a tort of strict liability. Its equivalents in criminal law include larceny or theft and criminal conversion. In those jurisdictions that recognise it, criminal conversion is a lesser crime than theft/larceny.
Thomas Haslem v. William A. Lockwood, Connecticut, (1871) is an important United States case in property, tort, conversion, trover and nuisance law.
Crabb v Arun District Council [1975] EWCA Civ 7 is a leading English land law and contract case concerning "proprietary estoppel". Lord Denning MR affirmed that where agreements concern the acquisition of rights over land, there is no need for both parties to provide a consideration for upholding the bargain. While promissory estoppel cannot found a cause of action it was held that in the peculiar situation of land, consideration is not necessary at all.
Proprietary estoppel is a legal claim, especially connected to English land law, which may arise in relation to rights to use the property of the owner, and may even be effective in connection with disputed transfers of ownership. Proprietary estoppel transfers rights if
Eng Foong Ho v Attorney-General was a 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeal of Singapore, on appeal from a 2008 decision of the High Court. The main issue raised by the case was whether the Collector of Land Revenue had treated the plaintiffs, who were devotees of the Jin Long Si Temple, unequally by compulsorily acquiring for public purposes the land on which the temple stood but not the lands of a Hindu mission and a Christian church nearby. It was alleged that the authorities had acted in violation of Article 12(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, which guarantees the rights to equality before the law and equal protection of the law.
Breskvar v Wall, was an Australian court case, decided in the High Court on 13 December 1971. The case was an influential decision in property law, specifically the effect of obtaining title by registration under the Torrens title system, the application of the fraud exception to the principle of indefeasibility and whether Frazer v Walker should be followed in Australia. The High Court followed Frazer v Walker in upholding that a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the fraud obtained an effective title even though the person they purchased from was registered by fraud against the original owner.
Frazer v Walker [1967] 1 AC 569 is a landmark New Zealand court case that went to the Privy Council on appeal. The case upheld the concept that an owner of interest in land which was originally obtained from the rightful owner through fraud, still obtains an indefeasible interest in that title if they were unaware of the fraud.
Efstratiou v Glantschnig (1972) is an often cited New Zealand case to the limits of indefeasibility of title to land ownership, where in this case, the purchaser of the land was aware of the title fraud at the time of the purchase of the property.
The Prescription Act 1832 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom concerning English land law, and particularly the method for acquiring an easement. It was passed on 1 August 1832.
In English common law, real property, real estate, immovable property or, solely in the US and Canada, realty, refers to parcels of land and any associated structures which are the property of a person. In order for a structure to be considered part of the real property, it must be integrated with or affixed to the land. This includes crops, buildings, machinery, wells, dams, ponds, mines, canals, and roads. The term is historic, arising from the now-discontinued form of action, which distinguished between real property disputes and personal property disputes. Personal property, or personalty, was, and continues to be, all property that is not real property.
Bunny Industries v FSW Enterprises is a decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland.
 | This article relating to case law in New Zealand is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |