First off, Happy Diwali!
Today I started off with Land law. While I have described Land law as anal in the past (which is still true), I do find it a fascinating subject. This lecture focused on registered land, how to register land and to look a the Land Registration Acts of 1925 & 2002. While this sounds like the least exciting piece of law in the world, it is a vital piece of law (if not the most critical. Well that is the view being presented to us in the class), as registered land will provide a guarantee of the ownership for the registered proprietor of the land. Also, all land that is dealt with is becoming registered, and thus the amount of unregistered land is decreasing day by day. The reason that this piece stands out to me is the idea that if there has been a false sale, say B has sold A’s land to C and changed the registration on the register then C is the owner according to the law, not A’s. So the law will not recognise A as a victim of wrong and then try and rectify the registry for A, because A is no longer the owner. A may try to get indemnity from B, but if B decides to jet off to the Carribean, then good luck to A.
To end the day I had EU law where we explored the case of Supremacy and the Direct Effects of EU law. We were asked what fundamental question is not address by the treaties relating to the EU? Here’s a couple of seconds to think. Still not sure? Now? Well, I didn’t get off the top of my head. It’s merely (he said): What is the effect of EU law on the domestic law? Well, of all the things the treaties cover and considering how the treaties are all about rules of procedure, they don’t include the rules of procedure of how to enforce the laws? A jaw drop moment. Did not see this coming. So, how is everything sorted out then? Who rules supreme? Well to save space, it is EU law that ends on top… well kind of… it is on top on more of an ad hoc basis where domestic supreme courts say it is until they no longer agree to it. Totally full proof. We were told in lecture that this was a pragmatic approach as both sets of courts need each other. Scribbled on my notes it says this next to the remark: “So game theory? Like a repative game? That’s it, two hours for this conclusion?” At least I have the case knowledge for it now.
HP KOTECHA 