‘The Court of Appeal has gone back to a Roman legal scholar from AD 161 to help determine who owned fish in a lake in Lancashire after it was sold.’
Litigation Futures, 18th June 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Since the property market coronavirus restrictions were lifted on 13 May 2020, there has been a reported rush to buy and sell houses and flats. Where property is leasehold, the sale of the lease is often the trigger which leads to a claim being made for either a new lease or the freehold under the Leasehold Reform Acts. The purchaser will always be concerned to see exactly what term is being acquired. A lessee of a flat wishing to buy a new lease must have owned the lease for two years before serving a notice (s. 39(2)(a) of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993). The same ownership period applies to a claim to acquire the freehold of a house (s. 1(1)(b) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967).’
Falcon Chambers, June 2020
Source: www.falcon-chambers.com
‘In Ezair v. Conn [2020] EWCA (Civ) 687, the Court of Appeal has struck a blow in favour of established doctrine, in a case involving uncompleted contracts for the sale and sub-sale of land.’
Falcon Chambers, 4th June 2020
Source: www.falcon-chambers.com
‘Once the parties to a contract for the sale and purchase of land (or for the grant and acceptance of a lease) become contractually bound, then, other things being equal, neither of them should be able to back out – at least, not without some default of the other party to exploit. Of course, some such contracts are conditional, and the parties do not necessarily become unconditionally bound until some later date, if at all. But when the parties do become unconditionally bound, one or the other of them may ask the question: how can I force the reluctant party to complete? Or, looking at the problem from the other end: when do I have to complete? Can I be forced to complete?’
Falcon Chambers, May 2020
Source: www.falcon-chambers.com
‘At the time of writing, the UK remains subject to stringent and extensive measures which have been enacted by Parliament in response to the Covid19 pandemic. Although there has been some relaxation since the “lockdown” was first introduced in mid-March 2020, large parts of the economy remain on hold. This has had and will continue, for some time, to have an effect on the ability and desire of parties to contracts for the sale and/or development of land to perform their obligations. It will also affect the extent to which transactions of this sort continue to be entered into and the terms of sale and development agreements may well need to adapt to the changing landscape.’
Falcon Chambers, May 2020
Source: www.falcon-chambers.com
‘It is common for the estates of deceased persons to have as part of their assets land occupied by persons other than the personal representatives. This property might comprise residential or business premises let to tenants and generating an income for the estate, or, a common case, property occupied by the deceased together with a licensee (such as an adult child of the deceased) until death and which continues to be occupied by that licensee after death. The circumstances of the pandemic and its attendant legislation may complicate dealings with such premises, and those complications are considered here.’
The 36 Group, 27th April 2020
Source: 36group.co.uk
‘It was in City of London Building Society v Flegg that the House of Lords notably considered the position of overriding interests and those interests said to overreach them in the context of a mortgage of a property occupied by a third party. The courts had reason to revisit this area of the law much more recently in Baker v Craggs when the owner of the dominant tenement of an easement claimed that his interest overreached the overriding interest of the owner of the servient tenement. Now, in an ex tempore judgment given on the 19th March 2020, Jeremy Hyam QC, sitting as a Recorder in the County Court at Bristol, has adjudicated upon a similar issue in the case of Knight v Fernley in which the unregistered purchaser of a property who had gone into actual occupation of it claimed that her interest overrode that of a later transferee of the very same land.’
Radcliffe Chambers, 31st March 2020
Source: radcliffechambers.com
‘As every property practitioner knows, s 2(3) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 (the 1989 Act) requires a contract for the sale or other disposition of land to be ‘signed by or on behalf of each party’. Neocleous v Rees [2019] EWHC 2462 (Ch), [2019] All ER (D) 25 (Oct) was the first occasion on which the court was asked to determine whether an email footer satisfied the requirement for a signature in s 2(3). The issue arose in the context of an alleged compromise agreement between the parties to a property dispute, which was contained in an exchange of emails between their solicitors. Viewed in the wider context of the earlier authorities, and a recent Law Commission report, the decision encourages practitioners to consider how formality requirements in property transactions—and more generally—are now operating in an increasingly digital world.’
Falcon Chambers, 13th March 2020
Source: www.falcon-chambers.com
‘A naturalist who wanted to rewild the family farm has lost a 15-year legal battle with his brother after a judge ruled he cannot prevent the sale.’
Daily Telegraph, 23rd January 2020
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
Does your neighbour regularly park across your driveway? Have a dog that howls or barks incessantly? Play drum and bass music into the early hours? Have children that make uncontrolled noise or trespass regularly onto your property? Use power tools at anti-social hours at the weekend? Do you have a neighbour from hell? Have you raised a complaint to your neighbour directly or to others such as the police or the Local Authority? If so, your property may have suffered a Diminution in Value as a result of such anti-social behaviour or harassment. The value of your property depends on good neighbours and maintaining cordial relations.
Church Court Chambers, November 2019
Source: churchcourtchambers.co.uk
‘The recent Court of Appeal judgment in Farrar v Rylatt should serve as a warning to practitioners of the uphill struggle that a party faces when attempting to appeal a trial judge’s findings of fact.’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 22nd November 2019
‘On 3 September 2019, the Law Commission published its report entitled “Electronic execution of documents” (Law Com No 386). It is a report that is of interest to all lawyers, but is of particular interest to property lawyers, given the extent to which formality requirements apply in the context of property transactions.’
Landmark Chambers, 17th October 2019
Source: www.landmarkchambers.co.uk
‘Section 2(1) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 (‘the 1989 Act’) provides that a contract for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land can only be made in writing. Under section 2(3), the documents incorporating the terms must be signed by or on behalf of each party to the contract.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 15th October 2019
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘In a major judgment handed down by the Court of Appeal last week, Coulson LJ has given important guidance on the scope of the Concessions Contract Regulations 2016 (“the CCRs”), the extent of the land transaction exemption, and the requirements for claimants to show ‘sufficiently serious breach’ in procurement claims more generally. This was the first case to consider the CCRs in such a level of detail, and – in a ruling likely to be welcomed by public authorities – the meaning of ‘concession contract’ for the purposes of the Regulations is construed relatively narrowly, with the land transaction exemption given a conversely generous interpretation. The judge’s comments on the hurdles which a claimant must surmount to be awarded Francovich damages for breaches of procurement law also have a notably pro-defendant slant.’
Monckton Chambers, 16th October 2019
Source: www.monckton.com
‘A change to the capital gains tax (CGT) rules from April 2020 means divorcing or separating couples in the UK will have a shorter period of time in which to sell their interest in the family home without being hit by tax penalties.’
OUT-LAW.com, 8th October 2019
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘A law firm principal who claimed to be scared of losing his job if he admitted a mistake has been struck off for acting dishonestly.’
Law Society Gazette, 12th August 2019
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘A solicitor who recklessly facilitated a “dubious transaction” involving an Islamic community centre has been fined £20,000 and given a suspended suspension.’
Legal Futures, 15th April 2019
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘One of the UK’s largest black communities is celebrating a victory in the high court over a contested piece of land it wants to transform into a “black Canary Wharf”.’
The Guardian, 21st March 2019
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Couple unable to sell home after discovering public footpath running though living room.’
The Independent, 13th March 2019
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘This appeal considered whether, where a commission agent and his principal have not expressly, in their oral discussions, identified and agreed the precise event upon which commission is payable, but have expressly agreed in those oral discussions that a commission would be payable at an agreed percentage, their bargain is incomplete. It also considered whether the court can (whether by taking into account the relevant surrounding factual matrix or what the parties said, or the parties’ conduct), imply a term identifying the commission entitling event which gives business efficacy to the parties’ presumed common intention.’
UKSC Blog, 13th February 2019
Source: ukscblog.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024