Proprietary Estoppel and the Matrimonial Home on the Death of a Spouse – Anaghara v Anaghara & Ors [2020] EWHC 3091 – Pump Court Chambers

Posted November 24th, 2020 in bereavement, domicile, estoppel, married persons, matrimonial home, news by sally

‘It is rare that a spouse needs to pursue a claim in proprietary estoppel to secure occupation of a matrimonial home owned by the other spouse on the latter’s death: the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 will usually provide a remedy. But where, as here, the deceased is not domiciled in England and Wales the 1975 Act does not apply and an interesting point arises. The trial judge had found that there had been repeated representations to the effect that the wife might live in the property for so long as she wished made over a period of more than 20 years. The wife had reasonably relied upon those representations (understandably so one might think). However, the estate argued that the wife’s long “rent-free” occupation of the property owned by her husband counted as a “countervailing benefit” which the court was obliged to weigh in the balance and might mitigate or extinguish her equity. Such a countervailing benefit has been taken into account in the case of a licensee who harvests a crop (Henry v Henry [2010] UKPC 3) of a live-in carer paying no rent (Jennings v Rice [2002] EWCA 159) and of a son-in-law paying no rent to his parents-in-law after the death of his wife (Sledmore v Dalby (1996) 72 P & CR 196). In the latter case the benefit was sufficient wholly to extinguish the equity.’

Full Story

Pump Court Chambers, 20th November 2020

Source: www.pumpcourtchambers.com

Construction companies lose Court of Appeal challenge over expert determination – Local Government Lawyer

Posted November 17th, 2020 in construction industry, contracts, estoppel, housing, news, planning by sally

‘A consortium of construction companies has failed in an appeal over a High Court judge’s dismissal of its claim for a declaration that the decision of an independent expert in relation to a revised section 106 agreement was not conclusive and binding on the parties.’

Full Story

Local Government Lawyer, 16th November 2020

Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk

“For every promise, there is a price to pay” – St Ives Chambers

Posted April 28th, 2020 in estoppel, news, succession by sally

‘The basic ingredients for proprietary estoppel are well known, and many property practitioners would feel comfortable in spotting an estoppel when it has arisen. However, there is a shadowy question that is often avoided – assuming the estoppel is established, what is the actual result? After all, that is what the client will be most interested in!’

Full Story

St Ives Chambers, 23rd April 2020

Source: www.stiveschambers.co.uk

No oral modification clauses after Rock Advertising: Some property law difficulties – Wilberforce Chambers

Posted December 10th, 2019 in contracts, drafting, estoppel, news by sally

‘“No Oral Modification” clauses (“NOMs”) are regularly found in the boilerplate clauses towards the back of contracts. They are designed, and included, to try to impose some formality on future changes to the contractual arrangement between the parties. But does this work, and, if so, how? The conceptual difficulty with such clauses has been around for centuries.’

Full Story

Wilberforce Chambers, 5th December 2019

Source: www.wilberforce.co.uk

If you go down to the woods today – Nearly Legal

Posted November 18th, 2019 in damages, estoppel, housing, human rights, landlord & tenant, leases, news, rent, repairs, repossession by sally

‘This is a rather odd case concerning possession of a farmhouse in the Forest of Dean. It had been first occupied by the defendant’s mother and step father in 1993. The terms of this were in dispute, but the rent was £155 and the step-father was to undertake repairs and maintenance to the property. The step-father did carry out some repairs, but he moved out in 2002, visiting and leaving some possessions there thereafter. The mother moved out in 2006. Various other family and friends lived at the property in subsequent years. The defendant had rented and bought property of his own, but took on repairs to the farmhouse and regarded it as his family home.’

Full Story

Nearly Legal, 17th November 2019

Source: nearlylegal.co.uk

UK court considers validity of payment notices under ‘hybrid’ contracts – OUT-LAW.com

Posted October 14th, 2019 in construction industry, contracts, estoppel, news by tracey

‘The High Court has provided guidance to parties on the application of the payment provisions in the 1996 Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act (“Construction Act”) to “hybrid” contracts, which cover both construction and non-construction operations.’

Full Story

OUT-LAW.com, 10th October 2019

Source: www.pinsentmasons.com

Second possession orders and estoppel – Nearly Legal

‘A court of appeal decision on a first instance application, where the main issue was whether, given an historic possession order, the landlord could bring fresh possession proceedings.’

Full Story

Nearly Legal, 24th March 2019

Source: nearlylegal.co.uk

Lord Briggs at the Denning Society Annual Lecture, Lincoln’s Inn – Supreme Court

Posted November 16th, 2018 in equity, estoppel, fiduciary duty, forfeiture, lectures, rectification, solicitors by tracey

‘Lord Briggs at the Denning Society Annual Lecture, Lincoln’s Inn.’

Full speech

Supreme Court, 8th November 2018

Source: www.supremecourt.uk

Bennett v Bennett & Others [2018] EWHC 1931 (Ch) – Tanfield Chambers

Posted August 6th, 2018 in contracts, estoppel, news, sale of land, trusts by sally

‘Tanfield barristers Marc Glover and Chloe Sheridan successfully represented the Claimants in a High Court dispute over East Thurrock United Football Club. In a judgment handed down on 25th July 2018, the Court dismissed the defendant’s and additional parties’ claims to a share in the land used by the Football Club, claimed to be worth £10 million.’

Full Story

Tanfield Chambers, 6th August 2018

Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk

Farming disputes and proprietary estoppel: Gee v Gee – Family Law

Posted July 5th, 2018 in agricultural holdings, appeals, estoppel, evidence, families, news, witnesses by tracey

‘In recent years there has been a procession of farming proprietary estoppel cases, the most famous of which was probably Davies v Davies [2016] EWCA Civ 463, [2017] 1 FLR 1286 with the claimant in that case capturing the media’s attention as the “Cowshed Cinderella”. On 11 June 2018 Mr Justice Birss, sitting in Bristol, handed down judgment on the latest, the case of Gee v Gee & Anor [2018] EWHC 1393 (Ch), [2018] All ER (D) 58 (Jun).’

Full Story

Family Law, 4th July 2018

Source: www.familylaw.co.uk

Beach huts: chattels, leases, estoppel – Nearly Legal

Posted January 9th, 2018 in estoppel, gifts, housing, leases, news by sally

‘Gilpin and ors v Legg [2017] EWHC 3220 (Ch) is a gift (at least to land law examiners) that is going to keep on giving. This is not just because of the claims discussed – whether beach huts were fixtures or chattels, whether a lease had been granted to the owners of the huts, whether the landowner was estopped from obtaining possession, and even certain pleadings issues (the pleadings do seem to have been a little, erm, jejeune) – but also because HHJ Matthews (who I’m ashamed to say I haven’t come across) added his tuppenies to a couple of controversies, not least making some important observations on the correctness of the Supreme Court judgment in Berrisford v Mexfield. Part of the problem in the case was that the events which underpinned the various claims happened over many years, were oral, and, in some cases, involved transfers of title (the issues of which were neatly stepped over by the judge who referred to bona fide purchasers, so we might be dealing with unregistered land, a point not made clear).’

Full Story

Nearly Legal, 8th January 2018

Source: nearlylegal.co.uk

Autumn Newsletter – Falcon Chambers

– Prescriptive easements – a glass half-full: out with the negative; in with the positive 10

– Keeping the Title Clean: Unwanted Notices and Restrictions 12

– Estoppel in Pre-Contractual Negotiations 15

– The Curse of the Freebie 17

– Voidable and no Mistake 20

Full Story

Falcon Chambers, November 2017

Source: www.falcon-chambers.com

Our House, in the middle of … Ambridge: Rogers v Burns – Tanfield Chambers

Posted August 22nd, 2017 in cohabitation, estoppel, housing, matrimonial home, news by sally

‘Thirty-something lovers Fallon Rogers (barmaid) and Harrison Burns (police constable) didn’t have much money between them. What little they had was Harrison’s – enough for a deposit on a modest house, in fact. Fed up with all the broken boilers and other hassles of renting, Harrison thought it would be an idea for them to look at buying a property. Fallon was unable to obtain financial assistance from any of her cash-strapped family to help her fund any such purchase. But all was not lost….’

Full Story

Tanfield Chambers, 20th July 2017

Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk

Appeal judges reject law firm’s claim for fees under insolvency CFA – Litigation Futures

Posted August 9th, 2017 in appeals, costs, estoppel, insolvency, news, solicitors by sally

‘The Court of Appeal has rejected a law firm’s claim to its legal fees in a battle with a liquidator over a conditional fee agreement (CFA).’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 8th August 2017

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Lessons in understanding: Unfairness and Estoppel by Convention in the Upper Tribunal – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted February 22nd, 2017 in estoppel, leases, news, service charges, tribunals by sally

‘Towards the end of last year, the Upper Tribunal (“UT”) handed down decisions in two cases involving estoppel by convention:

Admiralty Park Management Ltd v Ojo [2016] UKUT 0421 (LC) 8 September 2016 (“Ojo”); and

Bucklitsch and anor v Merchant Exchange Management Company Limited [2016] UKUT 0527 (LC) 13 December 2016 (“Bucklitsch”).’

Full story

Hardwicke Chambers, 18th January 2017

Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk

Jetha v Basildon Court Residents Company Ltd – Arden Chambers

Posted February 22nd, 2017 in appeals, covenants, estoppel, landlord & tenant, leases, news, service charges, tribunals by sally

‘The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) has given guidance on the approach to be followed by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) when considering whether there is an estoppel by convention which prevents a leaseholder from denying the payability of a service charge which has not been demanded in accordance with the terms of the lease.’

Full story

Arden Chambers, 16th February 2017

Source: www.ardenchambers.com

Marc Delehanty on the Enforceability of Promises Made Subsequent to Written Contracts: New Caselaw – Littleton Chambers

Posted February 20th, 2017 in agreements, appeals, contracts, estoppel, news by sally

‘Commercial litigators regularly encounter disputes which arise from parties’ attempts to renegotiate obligations under written agreements in situations where one party is having difficulty performing as required under the contract.’

Full story

Littleton Chambers, 26th January 2017

Source: www.littletonchambers.com

When is relief from forfeiture available? – Tanfield Chambers

Posted February 17th, 2017 in canals, estoppel, forfeiture, licensing, news, water by sally

‘Property analysis: Is relief from forfeiture only available to claimants with proprietary or possessory rights? Barrister Robert Bowker, of Tanfield Chambers, considers the recent High Court decision in General Motors UK v Manchester Ship Canal Company.’

Full story

Tanfield Chambers, 26th January 2017

Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk

Reeves v Young – Tanfield Chambers

Posted February 16th, 2017 in boundaries, costs, enforcement, estoppel, news, party walls, surveyors by sally

‘Third surveyors, the impartial arbiters of the party wall world, rarely feature prominently in party wall litigation. However, there have been two recent County Court cases in which the selection and purported removal of third surveyors has been considered by the Court, in both cases HHJ Bailey in the County Court at Central London.’

Full story

Tanfield Chambers, 2nd February 2017

Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk

The mechanics of proprietary estoppel – Nearly Legal

Posted August 12th, 2016 in appeals, constructive trusts, estoppel, news by sally

‘What is the difference between, on the one hand, Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd v Cobbe [2008] UKHL 55 and, on the other hand, Thorner v Majors [2009] UKHL 18? The standard answer is that Cobbe involved commercial parties who, well, ought to have known better than to rely on an incomplete agreement (no unconscionability), whereas, in Thorner, we were dealing with the delightfully taciturn farmers of the Quantock Hills (unconscionability in the circs).’

Full story

Nearly Legal, 10th August 2016

Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk