‘Blockchain-backed ‘smart contracts’ will be a “game changer” in property transactions, increasing certainty for buyers and sellers as well as speeding up the house-buying process, it has been claimed.’
Legal Futures, 26th April 2017
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘A Cambridge-educated law lecturer has left his brother homeless – and facing a £200,000 legal bill – after winning a court battle to sell a £750,000 flat bought by the pair with money left to them by their mother.’
Daily Telegraph, 20th March 2017
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘A High Court judge has refused to strike-out a claim by a woman who failed to comply with a Court of Appeal order to pay £250,000 in interim costs, on the grounds that it would breach her rights to a fair trial.’
Litigation Futures, 2nd March 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘One of the issues in Whitstable Society v Canterbury City Council [2017] EWHC 254 (Admin) was whether the notification and consultation proceedings required by Section 123(2A) in relation to open space land owned by a local authority ought to have been gone through in respect of the sale of land owned by the City Council. Dove J held not, notwithstanding that the land had been acquired for development as open space and had not been formally appropriated to any other use.’
Local Government Law, 15th February 2017
Source: www.11kbw.com
‘And indeed never authorised the co-purchaser to enter into a contract on her behalf without her consent, did not know that he was entering into a contract, or consent to his doing so on her behalf. That was the remarkable situation in the case of Rabiu v. Marlbray Ltd [2016] 1 WLR 5147. At first blush one might have thought, in line with the decision in Suleman v. Shahsavari [1998] 1 WLR 1181, that in the absence of the signature of one of the co-purchasers, there was no binding contract and that that would be the end of the matter. So the trial judge concluded, but the Court of Appeal held that on the facts of the case the purchaser who had signed had rendered himself liable as between himself and the vendor of the property, notwithstanding the absence of the signature of his co-purchaser. In so doing it distinguished Suleman. The decision of the Court of Appeal, which runs to 111 paragraphs, considers a number of issues and repays careful study. This casenote will consider the questions of the validity of the contract between the vendor and the copurchaser and the formalities required by s.2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. A second casenote (to follow) will consider whether, on the assumption that there was no valid contract as between the vendor and the co-purchaser (either because the contract had not been signed by the other co-purchaser, or because of want of the formalities required by s.2), the vendor was required to return the co-purchaser’s deposit or could retain it.’
Radcliffe Chambers, February 2017
Source: www.radcliffechambers.com
‘Canterbury City Council sold land on the seafront in Whitstable to a property developer for less than best consideration but the case was not appropriate for a quashing order, a High Court judge has ruled.’
Local Government Lawyer, 15th February 2017
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘A recent decision by Master Matthews in Menalou v Bank of Cyprus UK Limited [2016] EWHC 2656 (Ch), in a characteristically detailed and interesting judgment, reaffirms the author’s long-held view that the appropriate procedure for the a claimant, claiming to be subrogated to the unpaid vendor’s lien, to use is to apply for an order for sale and vesting/appointment orders under s90 Law of Property Act 1925. Section 90 reads as follows:
“90.— Realisation of equitable charges by the court.
(1) Where an order for sale is made by the court in reference to an equitable mortgage on land (not secured by a legal term of years absolute or by a charge by way of legal mortgage) the court may, in favour of a purchaser, make a vesting order conveying the land or may appoint a person to convey the land or create and vest in the mortgagee a legal term of years absolute to enable him to carry out the sale, as the case may require, in like manner as if the mortgage had been created by deed by way of legal mortgage pursuant to this Act, but without prejudice to any incumbrance having priority to the equitable mortgage unless the incumbrancer consents to the sale…”’
Hardwicke Chambers, 5th January 2017
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘Dictators and human rights abusers who buy luxury property in London and use the UK to conceal their wealth could have their assets seized under an MPs’ initiative.’
The Guardian, 4th December 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The Jackson Five once informed us that love was as ‘easy as 123’, but are local authority land disposals so straightforward? The basic idea seems simple enough. Local authority land holdings should not be sold at an undervalue without ministerial consent.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 14th November 2016
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘William Griffiths QC is a successful silk but was the unsuccessful defendant in the widely reported case of Hardy v Griffiths [2014]. Mr and Mrs Griffiths had exchanged contracts with the claimant, Mr Hardy, to buy Laughton Manor for £3.6m and paid £150,000 on account of the 10% deposit, the contract incorporating the Standard Conditions of Sale (SCS).’
Hardwicke Chambers, 25th July 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘Andy Creer considers the recent decision of Laditi and another v Marlbray Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 476 in which Brie Stevens-Hoare QC and Lina Mattsson acted for the Claimants/Respondents.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 13th June 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘Contracts for the sale of land can fail to complete for many reasons. The Standard Conditions and Standard Commercial Conditions require a 10% deposit to be paid on exchange of contracts. This can amount to a substantial sum of money. Purchasers will know that where they fail to complete it is commonplace for the vendor to retain that deposit. In the current market, with property prices soaring ever higher, the out-of-pocket purchaser may be justified in feeling that the vendor has obtained a windfall in keeping the deposit and selling the property on to a third party at a higher price.’
Tanfield Chambers, 6th July 2016
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘Project Blue Limited (PBL) was not liable for stamp duty land tax (SDLT) in respect of its acquisition of the former Chelsea Barracks by means of a Shari’a finance scheme, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 31st May 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Asset Land’s appeal rejected by the supreme court but the City regulator says investors “are likely only to get a fraction of their money back”.’
The Guardian, 20th April 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Changes made to the UK government’s Housing and Planning Bill will confine the sale of starter homes to those aged 23 or over and require a proportion of the discount on their purchase price be repaid if the homes are sold on within 20 years.’
OUT-LAW.com, 19th April 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘New laws that aim to stop the UK being a magnet for money launderers – by forcing the owners of properties to reveal their identities – should be applied retrospectively, leading anti-corruption organisations whose work has strongly influenced the government are saying.’
The Guardian, 13th February 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘In recent years it has become increasingly common for parties to a development agreement to agree to act towards one another with “good faith”. The meaning and extent of the obligations on the contracting parties imposed by such clauses is often difficult to ascertain. The purpose of this paper is to consider a number of cases in which good faith clauses, implied and express, are discussed and identify the general principles that apply to development agreements.’
Tanfield Chambers, 30th November 2015
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘Amanda Eilledge explores the availability of public law defences and promissory estoppel in the context of a contract for the sale of land following the decision in Dudley Muslim Association v Dudley MBC [2015] EWCA Civ 1123.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 9th December 2015
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘This case concerned the application of the law in relation to future conduct, in particular, the role of the judicial review procedure in determining what precisely is meant by the prohibition on the selling of live animals under the Pet Animals Act 1951.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 4th August 2015
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
Bagum v Hafiz and another [2015] EWCA Civ 801; [2015] WLR (D) 329
‘Sections 14 and 15 of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 conferred on the court a substantially wider discretion, exercised on the basis of wider considerations, than the trustees themselves enjoyed acting without either the beneficiaries’ consent or a court order. The court’s powers were there to enable the property to be dealt with justly when the beneficiaries could not agree and direct the trustees how to deal with the property.’
WLR Daily, 22nd July 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024