Property Law article
Mallet & Sons Ltd v Grosvenor West End Properties CA, 21/3/06
A court should consider a property and whether it was designed or adapted for living in at the time notice was served when deciding if it satisfied the definition of a house for the purpose of s.2(1) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.
Comments Off
Kent & An v Kananagh & Anor CA, 10 EG 155 2006 (Date Unknown)
The first part of the rule in Wheeldon v Burrows (1879) LR 12 Ch D 31 has no application on a conveyance made on enfranchisement under s.8(1) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. The application of the second rule in Wheeldon was limited by the need to construe the conveyance executed so as to give effect to the common intention of the parties and by s.10(2)(ii).
Comments Off
Meretz Investments NV & Anor v ACP Ltd & Ors [2006] EWHC 74 (Ch) (30 January 2006)
Where a mortgagee exercises his power of sale with mixed motives, including to recover the debt secured by the mortgage, his exercise of the power of sale would not be improper, but where no part of his motive was to recover the debt, the power of sale would be invalidated.
Comments Off
Shepherd & Ors v Turner & Anr, CA, 23/1/06
The Appellant appealed the Lands Tribunal’s decision to permit modification of restrictive covenants concerning 8 houses in a road. One owner wished to erect a house on land to the rear of the house. The Lands Tribunal allowed the modification under section 84(1)(aa) of the Law of Property Act 1925 and this was upheld by the Court of Appeal. The Court held that “reasonable user” referred to long term use rather than any nuisance caused by the construction works.
Comments Off
Ruddick v Ormston, ChD, Patten J, 15/11/05
C sought specific performance of an alleged contract with D for the sale of D’s flat. C wrote on two diary pages what he alleged was a binding contract for the sale of the flat. However, the claim failed as the disary pages did not comply with sec.2(1) of the Law of Property (Misc. Provisions) Act 1989 because neither page contained mutual obligations to buy and sell and the completion date was not specified in the diary pages.
Comments Off
JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v. United Kingdom [2005] ECHR 921 (15 November 2005)
The deprivation of land under the Limitation Act 1980 and the Land Registration Act 1925 was in breach of Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention of Human Rights. In this case the applicant had been deprived of property and received no compensation for the loss. It imposed a disproportionate and severe burden on the applicant.
Comments Off
R (on the application of Sinclair Gardens Investments (Kensington) Limited) v Lands Tribunal, CA, 8/11/05
Where the Lands Tribunal refused permission to appeal the decision of the leasehold valuation tribunal, this decision was subject to be judicial reviewed, but only where the decision was wrong in law and the error was sufficiently grave to be treated as exceptional.
Comments Off
Tennant & Anor v Adamczyk & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 1239 (04 October 2005)
The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge had erred in relying upon events post october 1991 as affirming the position at an earlier date. At the relevant time the Respondents had failed to show sufficient factual possession or intention to possess the land.
Comments Off
Simpson v Simpson & Anr, Ch D, Moss QC, 21/9/05
On the evidence a disputed property was held on trust for C. The Court found that the property had been acquired by the Second D, a company, on the basis of an agreement with C’s father that it would hold the property for C’s father or possibly for him and his family.
Comments Off
Wilkins & Anor v Lewis [2005] EWHC 1710 (Ch) (29 July 2005)
The court interpreted a right of way through an agricultural estate and in particular held that the right of way permitted the defendant, his invitees and lawful visitors access to go to the estate for purposes of a commercial shoot but not for the purpose of carrying out agricultural or forestry activity.
Comments Off