Samuel Laughton

Sam is a real property specialist, with a deep understanding both of traditional property principles and of the modern laws based on land registration: as well as wide experience in the common law and statute-based rules of landlord and tenant (including leasehold enfranchisement).

Reported Cases

• Bowen v Isle of Wight Council [2022] 1 WLR 1802: A road was a “road to which the public has access”, within the meaning of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 s.142, provided that access by the public was not exercised in the face of, or in defiance of, efforts by the owner to prevent it. The enquiry was essentially a factual one and the important question was not whether the public’s presence on the road was impliedly permitted or merely tolerated, but whether the road was one on which they might reasonably be expected to be present.
• N3 Living Ltd v Burgess Property Investments Ltd [2020] EWHC 1711 (Ch): Appointing a second trustee was a proper and conventional way of dealing with an application for the entry of a Form A restriction against the registered title of a property under the Land Registration Rules 2003 Sch.4 so as to permit completion of a sale.
• Abdulla v Whelan [2017] 1 WLR 3318: The legal estate in a lease held on trust by a bankrupt and her co-tenant on behalf of themselves was “property held on trust for any other person” within the Insolvency Act 1986 s.283(3) and so was excluded from the bankrupt’s estate. A disclaimer served by the trustee in bankruptcy therefore did not end the legal estate in the lease or the bankrupt’s liability to pay rent.
• Collins v Collins [2015] EWHC 2652 (Ch), [2016] 2 P & CR 6: A gift of the equitable interest in an entirely landlocked piece of land that was intended for commercial development gave rise to equitable and legal easements for access by commercial vehicles over other land in the settlors’ sole ownership. It was fanciful to suggest that there had been an intention to make a gift of the whole equitable interest in an entirely landlocked piece of land that was intended for commercial development but with no means of vehicular access.
• Yeates v Line & Field [2013] Ch 363: An appeal to the High Court from the Adjudicator to HM Land Registry, concerning the question of whether s.2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 applied to an oral settlement agreement concerning an adverse possession dispute and an application to alter the register. The judge found that it did not, holding that although the ‘effect’ of the agreement was to dispose of an interest in land, that was not the ‘purpose’ of the agreement, thus extending the reach of the Court of Appeal decision in Joyce v Rigolli [2004] EWCA Civ 79, [2004] 1 P & CR D55.
• Power v Stanton [2010] 42 EG 110: It was held that the death of a landlord does not mean that his successor in title cannot be identified or found within the meaning of s.50(1)(b) of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. Rather, a s.42 notice under that Act can be served in such circumstances either on the executors of an unproved will or by using s.18(1) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1994.
• Barrett v Halifax [1995] 28 HLR 634: A court order granted leave to mortgagors to sell the mortgaged property at a price less than the sum secured and to pay outgoings of the sale from the proceeds of sale.