“The principle of equity is stated in Ramsden v. Dyson (1866) L.R., 1 H.L. 129 at p. 140 by Lord Cranworth, L.C.: “If a stranger begins to build on my land supposing it to be his own, and I, perceiving his mistake, abstain from setting him right, and leave him to persevere in his error, a court of equity will not allow me afterwards to assert my title to the land on which he had expended money on the supposition that the land was his own. It considers that, when I saw the mistake into which he had fallen, it was my duty to be active and to state my adverse title; and that it would be dishonest in me to remain wilfully passive on such an occasion, in order afterwards to profit by the mistake which I might have prevented. But it will be observed that to raise such an equity two things are required, first, that the person expending the money supposes himself to be building on his own land; and, secondly, that the real owner at the time of the expenditure knows that the land belongs to him and not to the person expending the money in the belief that he is the owner. For if a stranger builds on my land knowing it to be mine, there is no principle of equity which would prevent my claiming the land with the benefit of all the expenditure made on it. There would be nothing in my conduct, active or passive, making it inequitable in me to assert my legal rights.” Dyson was claiming in that case through Thornton, who as a tenant at will, or at most from year to year, had built on the land he took as tenant. Lord Cranworth goes on to say that- “It follows as a corollary from these rules, or perhaps, it would be more accurate to say it forms part of them, that if my tenant builds on land which he holds under me, he does not thereby, in the absence of special circumstances, acquire any right to prevent me from taking possession of the land and buildings when the tenancy has determined. He knew the extent of his interest, and it was his folly to expend money upon a title which he knew would or might soon come to an end.” Ramsden v. Dyson was mentioned in argument before Fry J. in Willmott v. Barber (1880) 15 Ch. D. 96, in which that learned judge stated the factors in acquiescence (at p. 105), quoted and followed in Abbey v. Ollenu, 14 W.A.C.A. 567, at 568.”
LawCompass
… the Digital Solution Research Tool
