Law - Journal Articles

Permanent URI for this collection

Browse

Recent Submissions

Now showing 1 - 5 of 120
  • Item
    An easement by estoppel?
    (Sweet & Maxwell, 2013-02) Mee, John
    Discusses the Court of Appeal judgment in Joyce v Epsom and Ewell BC on whether the successor in title to a homeowner who, as a condition of him withdrawing his objection to the construction of supermarket, had been allowed a right of way over a driveway to a service road behind his property, could establish the existence of an easement by way of proprietary estoppel. Considers the relevance of the local authority's awareness that it had induced the owner into believing he enjoyed a right of access. Assesses whether the authority's denial of the claimant's entitlement was unconscionable.
  • Item
    The limits of proprietary estoppel: Thorner v Major
    (Jordan Publishing, 2009) Mee, John
    Considers the House of Lords decision in Thorner v Major, reported as Thorner v Curtis, on whether a farmer who had worked without pay on his cousin's farm because of vague assurances that he would inherit the farm, had a claim in proprietary estoppel when the cousin died intestate. Discusses how the reasoning in the instant case differed from the earlier House of Lords decision in Cobbe v Yeoman's Row Management Ltd, the importance of certainty of representation and of the subject matter of the representation and the relationship between proprietary estoppel and constructive trusts.
  • Item
    Cohabitation law reform in Ireland
    (Jordan Publishing, 2011-09) Mee, John
    This article considers the new Irish legislative scheme for cohabitants, contained in Part 15 of the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010. The article discusses the background to the legislation, noting the increase in the prevalence of cohabitation in Ireland and the complexity created by the decision to proceed with reform without attempting to update the provisions of the Irish Constitution related to the family The Irish scheme provides for a range of possible remedies for 'qualifying cohabitants', who must have lived together for at least 5 years, or for at least 2 years if they have a dependent child. The scheme also regulates the making of 'cohabitants' agreements'. A key limitation on the scheme is that the claimant must establish 'financial dependency' as a prerequisite of a remedy. This significantly limits the scope of the scheme and is likely to generate anomalous results, whereby a remedy will be denied to claimants who have suffered serious loss as a result of a relationship but who have not become 'financially dependent'. The article concludes that, in light of the scheme's limited nature and the various problems with its provisions, it is questionable whether its enactment represents a positive development.
  • Item
    A minimal approach to adverse possession
    (Sweet & Maxwell, 2015-09) Mee, John
    Comments, from an English law perspective, on the Irish High Court judgment in Dooley v Flaherty on whether the defendant's period of adverse possession of a dilapidated property, that commenced on the termination of an oral periodic tenancy, had been interrupted by the paper owner's acts in: (1) accessing the roof via a neighbour's attic to effect a repair; (2) arranging for an employee to repair some roof slates; and (3) insuring the property.
  • Item
    Presumed resulting trusts, intention and declaration
    (Cambridge University Press, 2014-03-07) Mee, John
    Rejecting the competing positions of Swadling and Chambers, this article argues that the law of presumed resulting trusts reflects a very old rule that, upon a voluntary transfer, the fate of the beneficial interest in the property depends on the intention of the transferor. The case law shows that the presumption is of an intention to create a trust for the transferor or provider of the purchase money. It makes no difference if, reflecting the historically important concept of “retention”, this is phrased in negative terms as a presumption that the intention of the transferor was not to pass the beneficial interest to the transferee.