‘The Court of Appeal has overturned a High Court decision striking out a negligence claim against Birmingham law firm Blakemores, now in administration, and also set aside a default judgment obtained by the firm for £635,500 in costs.’
Legal Futures, 8th October 2015
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘Collapsed Midlands firm Blakemores will face trial over a land registration dispute after the Court of Appeal reopened a case against it.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 7th October 2015
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘“Litigation is a hazardous and expensive business.”
Thus began the skeleton argument of my opponent in the Paddico case which I refer to below. He was (and remains) a leading counsel with a high reputation in the field of property work and he was, of course, correct.’
Park Square Barristers, 11th August 2015
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘A High Court judge has recently upheld a judicial review challenge by a campaigner over an inspector’s refusal of an application to register land in Exeter as a town green, it has been reported.’
Local Government Lawyer, 4th September 2015
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘For reasons that will become clear in this post, rentcharges are a bit of a legal oddity. It has been a new realm for me, but I was intrigued by this case, and wiser members of the NL collective have held my hand as I headed down this particular rabbit hole.’
Nearly Legal, 8th June 0215
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
Swift 1st Ltd v Chief Land Registrar [2015] EWCA Civ 330; [2015] WLR (D) 167
‘The proprietor of a registered charge which turned out to have been a forged disposition was entitled to payment by way of indemnity under Schedule 8 to the Land Registration Act 2002 in circumstances where the registered proprietor and rightful owner of the property was in actual occupation at the date of the disposition.’
WLR Daily, 1st April 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina (Littlejohns and another) v Devon County Council [2015] EWHC 730 (Admin); [2015] WLR (D) 136
‘The transitional provisions in Schedule 3 to the Commons Act 2006 provided a brief window within which the commons register could be updated and corrected by incorporating any registrations which could have been, but were not, made under the Commons Registration Act 1965. Thereafter, any unregistered rights would be extinguished under paragraph 3 to the Schedule, repeating the legislative approach adopted in section 1(2)(b) of the 1965 Act.’
WLR Daily, 24th March 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘An area of foreshore which lay within the operational land of a harbour was not registrable as a town or village green pursuant to section 15 of the Commons Act 2006 because the byelaws applicable to the harbour had impliedly authorised it use for bathing and associated recreational activities, and so such use had not been “as of right”, and in any event section 15 did not apply where the statutory purposes for which such land was held were incompatible with such registration.’
WLR Daily, 25th February 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The Queen (on the application of Newhaven Port and Properties Limited) v East Sussex County Council and Newhaven Town Council [2015] SC 7 25 February 2015.
Late February is not necessarily the best time of year for a bit of UK sea swimming. But the Supreme Court has just come out with interesting judgments about whether there is a right to go to the beach and swim from it. For reasons I shall explain, they were anxious not to decide the point, but there are some strong hints, particularly in the judgment of Lord Carnwath as to what the right answer is, though some hesitation as to how to arrive at that answer.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 25th February 2015
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘We have dealt with the basic facts in Scott v Southern Pacific Mortgages Ltd [2014] UKSC 52 when considering its previous incarnations (Cooke v Mortgage Business [2012] EWCA Civ 17 and Re North East Property Buyers Ltd [2010] EWHC 2991 (Ch)). In summary, the basic question for the Supreme Court was this: where a seller has agreed, prior to the contract of sale, that the buyer will grant the seller a tenancy after the sale, does the seller have that right so as not only to bind the buyer but also the buyer’s lender? I think, when framed as a question like that, the answer seems obvious. Call me a weak-kneed liberal, but all the equity (colloquially speaking) is in favour of the seller. They have entered in to the transaction on that basis and would not have entered in to the transaction otherwise. We all make bad deals which the law doesn’t get us out of, but the equity isn’t really in our favour: why should the law get us out of a bad deal?’
Nearly Legal, 14th December 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Gold Harp Properties Ltd v Macleod & Others [2014] EWCA Civ 1084 is a very important Court of Appeal decision explaining the effect of rectification of the register following a mistake. The effect on the priority of interests created after the mistake but before the rectification is different from what many in the profession thought it was.’
Full story (PDF)
New Square Chambers, 28th November 2014
Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk
‘County Councils in England, District Councils in England for an area without a County Council, London Borough Councils and County or County Borough Councils in Wales are “commons registration authorities”. The commons registration authority in relation to any land is the authority in whose area the land is situated. Where any land falls within the area of two or more commons registration authorities, the authorities may by agreement provide for one of them to be the commons registration authority in relation to the whole of the land.’
Local Government Law, 17th November 2014
‘A purchaser of a property could not grant equitable rights of a proprietary character prior to acquisition of the legal estate.’
WLR Daily, 22nd October 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Wiggins v Regent Wealth Ltd and others [2014] EWCA Civ 1078; [2014] WLR (D) 352
‘Section 2 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 did not permit exercise of a right to collective enfranchisement in relation to leasehold interests which were not in existence at the date of service of the initial notice under section 13 of the Act, and paragraph 15(2)(b) of Schedule 3 to the Act did not confer power on the court to permit amendment of the initial notice to specify such interests.’
WLR Daily, 30th July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
MacLeod and others v Gold Harp Properties Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1084; [2014] WLR (D) 345
‘Paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 to the Land Registration Act 2002 permitted the rectification of the land register where there were two competing derivative interests, the first of which had been mistakenly omitted or removed from the register, the second of which had been created during the period of mistaken deregistration and before the rectification of the register by the restoration of the first interest, so that the priority of the interests was changed in order that the first interest upon restoration was given the priority it would have had but for the mistake.’
WLR Daily, 29th July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A legal challenge against Essex County Council’s refusal to register a piece of land as a town or village green, protecting it from development, has been rejected by the High Court.’
OUT-LAW.com, 30th July 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘In Bank of Scotland v Joseph [2014] EWCA Civ 28, 1 P & Cr 18, the Court of Appeal was faced with an issue of priority in relation to a unilateral notice. It arose out of a rather curious set of facts.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 4th June 2014
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
Regina (Barkas) v North Yorkshire County Council [2014] UKSC 31; [2014] WLR (D) 228
‘Local inhabitants indulged “by right” in lawful sports and pastimes on a recreation ground which had been provided for that purpose by a local authority in the exercise of its statutory powers, not “as of right” as was necessary pursuant to section 15(2) of the Commons Act 2006 in order to register the land as a town or village green.’
WLR Daily, 21st May 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Supreme Court, 21st May 2014
‘A landowner has defeated an attempt to register as a village green land it owns that was previously the site of a military camp, after the applicant only fulfilled the registration requirements months after the relevant time limit.’
Local Government Lawyer, 27th May 2014
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025