‘Granting an option to purchase a shareholding to a party for a significant sum as relief for unfair prejudice was within the court’s discretion under the Companies Act 2006 s.996 despite valuation evidence showing the company was balance sheet insolvent.’
Tanfield Chambers, 14th July 2015
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘The recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Raymond v Young [2015] EWCA Civ 456 concerned the principles to be applied when considering what damages to award to property owners who were the victims of shocking harassment, trespass and nuisance conducted by their neighbours over a period of several years.’
New Square Chambers, 26th May 2015
Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk
‘This case is an interesting example of a claim for breach of confidence (both in contract and in equity) where, although liability was established, only nominal damages (£1) were awarded to the Claimant.’
RPC Privacy Law, 7th October 2014
Source: www.rpc.co.uk
Ageas (UK) Ltd v Kwik-Fit (GB) Ltd and another [2014] EWHC 2178 (QB); [2014] WLR (D) 407
‘It is was permissible to depart from the prima facie rule that damages following a breach of warranty in a share sale agreement were to be assessed at the date of breach and so to take into account events which had occurred after that date, where such departure was necessary to give effect to the overriding compensatory principle of assessment of damages.’
WLR Daily, 4th July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Fair compensation payable to a landowner in respect of the grant of statutory wayleave for an electricity power line, pursuant to paragraphs 6 and 7 of Schedule 4 to the Electricity Act 1989, was to be calculated by reference to the loss in value of the land and the principle of equivalence. Where a landowner had entered into a contract for the sale of land, which was conditional on the termination of an existing contractual wayleave for a power line and the removal of the line, and the Secretary of State had granted a statutory wayleave on the termination of the contractual one, the compensation to which the landowner was entitled was the difference between the contract price for the land in question at the valuation date and the open market value of the land once the statutory wayleave had been granted.’
WLR Daily, 3rd March 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘In ancillary relief proceedings, the largest assets are frequently the divorcing couple’s matrimonial home and pension rights. Whilst it is usually straightforward to ascertain the value of the former, accurately achieving this for the latter can be a highly technical exercise. Solicitors’ alleged failure to analyse pension transfer values is the subject of a spate of negligence claims currently being brought by former clients. No case is yet to be reported, but it is expected that a number will be during 2014.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 13th January 2014
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
“Law can be expensive.
This is particularly so in relation to the process of law, i.e. the costs of going to the law. By this I mean things such as the court or tribunal fees, but particularly the costs of the lawyers. If you lose in civil litigation, the normal rule is that you’ve got to pay not just for your own lawyers, but for the other side’s too. Due to the way that costs are assessed and recovered, even the winner often has to foot the bill for some their own lawyers’ fees. It is fair to say that the general public doesn’t think too highly of the fees charged by lawyers. Now, a lot of the criticism is unfair (‘If you think a professional is expensive, wait ’til you try an amateur’) and based on misinformation and misunderstanding. Nonetheless, there is force in some of the criticism.”
NearlyLegal, 24th September 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
“There are those who say that service charges are a dry subject. To them I say, welcome to Wallace-Jarvis v (1) Optima (Cambridge) Ltd (2) Khazai [2013] UKUT 328 (LC).”
NearlyLegal, 29th July 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
Regina v Harvey [2013] EWCA Crim 1104; [2013] WLR (D) 268
“If a defendant obtained chattels as a result of his criminal conduct and used them over a substantial period, materially reducing their value before restoring them to their true owners, the court should not give credit for their residual value when making a confiscation order.”
WLR Daily, 3rd July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Where there were intermediate leases which subsisted between the freehold and the leases of the participating tenants and which were to be acquired by the nominee purchaser on the collective enfranchisement, and a single owner of those leases or of those leases and the freehold could realise development value by developing the property for use other than as a building containing separate flats, the hope of realising such development value had to be taken into account in fixing the price to be paid for the intermediate leases.”
WLR Daily, 19th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The operator of a property scheme who misled vulnerable customers to make money from the sale of their homes has been fined almost £1m by the City regulator and banned from working in the financial services industry.”
The Guardian, 19th June 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Loveridge v Lambeth London Borough Council [2013] EWCA Civ 494; [2013] WLR (D) 173
“The valuation required by section 28(1) of the Housing Act 1988, in respect of damages for unlawful eviction under section 27, required that the propensity for the rights of a tenant of a local authority to change from those of a secure tenant to those of an assured tenant on a sale of the reversion to a private landlord was to be factored into the hypothetical valuation of the landlord’s interest subject to the tenant’s rights.”
WLR Daily, 10th May 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“This important case deals with the approach a leasehold valuation tribunal (LVT) should take in relation to applications for dispensation from complying with the consultation requirements.”
Full story (PDF)
Zenith Chambers, 23rd April 2013
Source: www.zenithchambers.co.uk
Reeves (Listing Officer) v Northrop: [2013] EWCA Civ 362; [2013] WLR (D) 141
“In determining whether occupation of a houseboat was rateable the Valuation Tribunal had fallen into error by failing to treat duration of occupation as an important factor in its assessment.”
WLR Daily, 17th April 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Randy Northrop is a Californian and a wanderer in spirit. He lives with his family aboard MY Cannis – see the pic. He got fed up of ‘living in a grotty council house in a rough area’ of Bristol, so bought and renovated this former Thames tug. And nice inside it sounds too – two open fireplaces, several flat screen TVs, a music room and grand piano.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 18th April 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
Hunt v Hosking and ors [2013] EWHC 311 (Ch); [2013] WLR (D) 89
“When bringing an application under section 238 of the Insolvency Act 1986 there needed to be a transaction to which the company was a party and that involved mutuality. It did not extend to unilateral actions taken by somebody who had acted without authority.”
WLR Daily, 22nd February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“When carrying out the hypothetical valuation of a property with development potential, pursuant to paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 to the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, the Upper Tribunal ought to have decided the legal position in respect of the legal rights and liabilities arising under various leases, rather than allow for uncertainty on those legal points, insofar as leaving them undetermined, by a discount for the risk.”
WLR Daily, 20th February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
In the backwash of this recession the Courts are revisiting territory familiar from previous recessions – claims against valuers and mortgagees exercising powers of sale.
Littleton Chambers, 4th February 2013
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
“The LVT has no general power to award costs other than when an application is dismissed as frivolous or vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of process or a party has acted frivolously, vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably in connection with the proceedings. In such circumstances the costs are capped at £500: para 10 of Sch 12 to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act (‘CLRA’) 2002.”
Full story (PDF)
Tanfield Chambers, 8th January 2013
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
“A Valuation Tribunal has rejected an approach by assessors that would have increased the business rates paid by a City firm by 20% over the first five years of a lease.”
OUT-LAW.com, 20th July 2012
Source: www.out-law.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025