‘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
‘”We all want to see a system where it is only the very rich that pay inheritance tax, and not hard working people.”
Those were the words of David Cameron during Prime Minister’s Questions last week.’
BBC News, 24th October 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘A firm that purchased properties in the north east of England on the condition that the previous owners would be entitled to remain in their homes indefinitely was not in a position to make such a promise, the UK’s highest court has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 23rd October 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
Scott (Appellant) v Southern Pacific Mortgages Limited (Respondents) [2014] UKSC 52 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 22nd October 2014
‘Lenders must be careful to ensure that they do not lose the right to enforce their remaining rights under a security agreement when they choose to enforce only part of it, the Court of Appeal has warned.’
OUT-LAW.com, 20th October 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘A former Virgin Atlantic pilot has been jailed for 14 years for committing a £30m mortgage fraud in Berkshire.’
BBC News, 14th October 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘As a number of new laws come into effect this week, we take a look at how your life will be affected.’
Daily Telegraph, 1st October 2014
Source: www.telegrpah.co.uk
‘There have been a number of attempts by those facing repossession and worse at the hands of mortgage lenders to dispute the validity of the claims against them on the basis of a failure to comply with the necessary legal formalities. Mortgage lenders typically send a mortgage offer letter that they invite their borrower to sign. Often the mortgage lender does not formally sign the offer letter. At the time of an advance there is usually a mortgage deed which is often signed by the borrower not the lender.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 10th September 2014
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘For most parties that enter into litigation (save for those on CFAs and some who are legally aided) a win isn’t really a win unless the other side is also ordered to pay your costs. I say most, because certain litigants enter into litigation knowing that come what May their costs will be paid on the indemnity basis. They have the foresight (or more accurately the power) to draft contracts which provide that, in the event of litigation, the other side (often a borrower or a long leaseholder) will indemnify them for all their legal costs irrespective of whether they win or lose.’
NearlyLegal, 31st August 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Bank hit with its sixth penalty in four years, showing it is still far from being in proper shape to return to the private sector.’
The Guardian, 27th August 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘At the time of the decisions in Manchester City Council v Pinnock [2011] 2 AC 104 and Hounslow v Powell [2011] 2 AC 186 it was thought that a seismic shock wave would be sent through the Courts requiring them in every claim for possession of residential premises by a public sector landlord to undertake a time consuming balancing exercise to assess the “proportionality” of making an order for possession. The Courts, it was thought, would be overwhelmed. This has in fact not proved to be the case. The County Court has become adept at weeding out the weak cases early on and even where the article 8 point is run to trial the Court has, by and large, been robust in its approach. The one issue which has remained unresolved for a surprisingly long time is the question of the extent to which the principles set out in Powell and Pinnock would apply in a possession claim where the land owner is a private individual and not part of the public sector.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 4th August 2014
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
McDonald and others v McDonald: [2014] EWCA Civ 1049; [2014] WLR (D) 336
‘Where a private landlord sought a possession order under section 21(4) of the Housing Act 1988 the tenant could not resist the making of the order on the ground that it would be disproportionate under article 8.2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.’
WLR Daily, 24th July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘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
‘A High Court ruling has sided with the taxman over legislation introduced last year which aims to stop wealthy property buyers avoid paying tens of thousands of pounds in stamp duty.’
Daily Telegraph, 13th June 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Natasha Phillips underlines the importance of mortgage capacity assessments in divorce proceedings.’
New Law Journal, 6th June 2014
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has overturned a ruling which excused from liability a law firm which was duped into releasing £150,000 of mortgage funds.’
Legal Futures, 25th February 2014
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘Former English Defence League leader Tommy Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, has been jailed for 18 months for mortgage fraud.’
BBC News, 23rd January 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The landmark decision of the House of Lords Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge (No 2) [2002] 2 AC 773
described the circumstances which render a lending transaction by a bank vulnerable to a challenge for undue influence and provided guidance to bankers as to which steps they would need to take in order to protect their lending, and any security to be taken, from challenge. Several cases decided since Etridgehave demonstrated the breadth of the scope for challenge where bankers have failed to follow the guidance, while others have highlighted some constraints on effective challenges based upon undue influence. Jeremy Cousins QC discussed this topic at a recent lecture of the Chancery Bar Association and shares his thought in this detailed ‘Insider’.’
11 Stone Buildings, January 2014
Source: www.11sb.com
‘Law firms are facing thousands of claims for professional negligence over their involvement in “right to buy” work, it has emerged.’
Legal Futures, 27th November 2013
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
“In Temple Mortgage Fund Ltd v Att-Gen for the Turks and Caicos Islands (unreported, Supreme Court of the Turks and Caicos Islands, 26 July 2013), until just before the trial the only issue appeared to be the timing of the mortgagee’s exercise of its power of sale. However, at a very late stage the Defendant raised a further issue, namely whether certain provisions in the Plaintiff’s charge were binding on the Crown at all. Both issues were determined in favour of the Plaintiff.”
Full story (PDF)
New Square Chambers, 31st October 2013
Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024