Overriding interest meaning

This Checklist examines how easements come into being and whether they must, or may, be entered on the register at HM Land Registry. It addresses the following principal topics: Does an easement exist? Can it amount to a legal easement? Was the easement made by express grant? Is the express right set out in a deed of grant or a transfer? Is the right included within a lease? Has the easement arisen by implied grant? Has the easement arisen by presumed grant? Is the right merely equitable? Is the easement an overriding interest? Rights distinct from easements An application to HM Land Registry to register an easement may need supporting evidence of third party consents, or proof of compliance with a restriction on title. These matters are not explored in detail in this Checklist; see Practice Notes: Mortgages and land—dealings with land subject to a mortgage or legal charge, and Land registration—restrictions on title under...

Representation of Zedra Trust Company (Suisse) SA re C and D Trusts [2023] JRC 213 What are the practical implications of this case Although resolved on its own facts, the court offered broadly useful guidance for trustees managing dynastic trusts intended to support multiple generations. As a family’s philosophy evolves, trustees should assess whether the trust still embodies that shift and, if not, consider whether substantive modifications are required. The ruling will interest practitioners as it confronts public policy and human rights considerations within the framework of trust deed provisions and settlors’ expressed wishes. It underlines that letters of wishes are not binding on trustees, and certainly not on the court, and demonstrates judicial backing for a trustee departing from a settlor’s clear wishes to prevent family discord, here arising from the exclusion of the female line from benefitting from the Trusts. In short, the decision encourages trustees of long‑running family trusts to think carefully about alignment with changing family...

Public.Resource.Org and Right to Know v Commission and Others, Case C-588/21 What are the practical implications of this case? Although the dispute concerned four particular harmonised standards, the Court’s reasoning applies more widely to other harmonised standards as well. Where such standards are mandatory or create a presumption of conformity with safety requirements, there is a clear public interest in their disclosure, so the European Commission cannot refuse access by invoking the Article 4(2) exception in Regulation (EC) 1049/2001. Consequently, companies will be able to obtain harmonised standards to verify and ensure compliance with EU legislation without paying a fee; however, this may influence the business model of European standardisation organisations. What was the background? Under the European product safety rules, certain products can only be placed on the EU market if they satisfy safety requirements. Showing compliance with those requirements can often be an onerous exercise. Accordingly, the European legislator has provided for specific products (including, in this case, toys) that where a manufacturer follows...

Brexit highlights In this issue: Brexit SI Constitutional and administrative law Judicial review Public procurement Subsidy control and State aid Information law State security and intelligence Other public law news Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information UK-EU relations—Government responds to Business and Trade Committee report The government has issued its reply to the House of Commons Business and Trade Committee’s Sixth Special Report of Session 2024–25, ‘How to strengthen UK-EU relations: Policy Priorities for the Summit’. It sets out outcomes from the May 2025 UK-EU Summit, including a new UK-EU Security and Defence Partnership to deepen defence industrial co-operation and respond to hybrid threats and weaknesses in critical infrastructure. The response also confirms agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary measures, a 12-year fisheries arrangement, and stronger law enforcement co-operation. Further priorities include joint action to address non-market economies and economic crime,...

ARCHIVED: This archived Practice Note is no longer updated and serves solely as background information. In addition, certain links may not take you to the provisions as they stood when the guidance in this Practice Note was issued. IMPORTANT NOTE: this Practice Note addresses how CPR 3.9 should be applied and construed after Mitchell yet before Denton; Decadent and Utilise (Denton v White & others; Decadent Vapours Limited v Bevan & others; Utilise TDS Limited v Cranstoun Davies & others [2014] EWCA Civ 906, [2014] All ER (D) 53 (July) (not reported by LexisNexis®). The Court of Appeal has indicated it hopes that the Denton ruling will obviate any need to look back to prior authorities. Accordingly, the guidance in this Practice Note is predominantly of historical interest only at this time...

Practice Note This Practice Note consists of two strands created to help dispute resolution practitioners remain up to date with developments in case law that affect their field, or which influence civil litigation procedure more generally: selected forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court are highlighted below; see Key forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court—2022 summaries of significant appeal decisions in England and Wales (ie rulings of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court and, where appropriate, certain judgments of the Competition Appeal Tribunal, Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, Court of Justice of the European Union), and ECtHR, which we have covered; see: Key forthcoming appeal cases—2022 You can navigate this content using the table of contents in the left-hand margin. Alternatively, search this tracker using [CTRL]+[F]. This material is not intended to be a comprehensive register of every appeal or major decision relevant to dispute resolution practitioners. Key forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court—2022 Tort and negligence ...

Brexit, and public procurement reform The UK’s public procurement framework stems from EU procurement rules and, as a result, was touched by the UK’s departure from the EU—though only in a limited way. In substance, procurement law in the UK has largely carried on with only minor alterations, pending the arrival of the forthcoming procurement reform. For more detail, see Practice Note: Public procurement reform. The Public Procurement (Amendment etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 amended and revoked elements of procurement legislation to resolve practical issues arising from Brexit, and to ensure the system continued to function effectively once the UK had left the EU and the related transitional arrangements concluded at 11 pm on 31 December 2020 (IP completion day). Those changes formed part of the broader domestic legislative programme associated with Brexit, introduced under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (EU(W)A 2018). Some of the amendments are nonetheless subject to overriding requirements consistent with the UK’s international commitments, for example under relevant separation provisions in the Withdrawal Agreement,...

FORTHCOMING CHANGE: Potential changes to Wills Act 1837 The Law Commission’s review of wills culminated in a final report on 16 May 2025. Volume II contains a Draft Bill proposing replacement of the Wills Act 1837. For details of these proposals, including the published draft legislation, see Practice Note: Hot topic—modernising Wills and Modernising wills: Final Report Volume II: Draft Bill for a new Wills Act. STOP PRESS: Abolition of non-dom regime and introduction of residence-based IHT regime The Finance Act 2025 (FA 2025), which received Royal Assent on 20 March 2025, implements the abolition of the remittance basis and introduces a residence-based regime from 6 April 2025. FA 2025 makes residence, rather than domicile, the main determinant of liability to inheritance tax. changes to the rules defining excluded property status; removal of protected settlements status for offshore trusts; and modifications to overseas workday relief. For further information, see Practice Notes: The abolition of the remittance basis of taxation...

Made on [ date ], this trust is established as follows. Parties [ settlor ] of [ address ] (the Settlor) [ original trustees ] of [ addresses ] (the Original Trustees) Background The Settlor intends to create this Trust for the benefit of [ name ] (the Principal Beneficiary) and has conveyed to the Original Trustees the assets listed in Schedule 1 to be administered on the trusts set out below...

FORTHCOMING CHANGE: Potential changes to Wills Act 1837 The Law Commission’s review of wills published its final report on 16 May 2025, with Volume II setting out a draft Bill aimed at replacing the Wills Act 1837. For details of these proposals, including the published draft legislation, see Practice Note: Hot topic—modernising Wills and Modernising wills: Final Report Volume II: draft Bill for a new Wills Act. 1 Revocation I [ full name of testator ] of [ address of testator ] cancel all earlier testamentary dispositions made by me [ but only in so far as they concern my property of every description within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ] and state that this is my last Will. [ I also cancel any prior appointments of guardians of my minor children made by me before the date of this Will. ]...

This response addresses a situation where a party asserts the benefit, as overriding interests, of a five-year business lease and of chancel repair liability. Both arose before the land was registered yet were not recorded against the title, and the question is whether they could constitute overriding interests. Chancel repair liability Chancel repair liability has historically been difficult to pinpoint or verify because there is no single central register that sets out all such liabilities (see Practice Note: Chancel repair liability)...

Overriding interests Overriding interests split into two groups...

The question refers to the Land Registration Act 2002 (the Act), which mandates registration for any lease exceeding seven years. Absent registration, s 7(1) states the lease ‘becomes void as regards the ... grant .. of a legal estate’, while s 7(2)(b) states that ‘the grant … takes effect as a contract made for valuable consideration to grant … the legal estate concerned.’ The result is that the interest subsists only in equity. Consequently, non-registration affects not only the mutual rights of the contracting parties, but also whether a third party will be bound. By contrast, an option does not require registration in order to operate between the parties. In effect, the legal title does not arise, but the arrangement survives as an equitable contractual right, binding the parties and potentially affecting third-party obligations...