Legal News

Howe and another v Gossop and another [2021] EWHC 637 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling highlights the adaptable scope of equitable relief under proprietary estoppel and offers further direction on how that sits alongside contractual requirements. It also helps reconcile an apparent conflict in commentary and clarifies observations from the House of Lords and the Court of Appeal in other cases. Those advising on claims or defences founded on proprietary estoppel, or on disputes arising after unfinished negotiations concerning interests in land, now have an additional analytical approach to deploy. Attention must be paid to the precise nature of the right being asserted, the remedy sought, and the parties’ background and experience. In short, where parties have been working towards a property contract, that fact alone does not bar an equity from arising on grounds of...

Westfields Homes Ltd and another v Keay Homes ( Windrush) Ltd [2020] EWHC 3368 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling applies settled doctrines within a well‑known commercial setting. Two points merit attention. First, duties to act in good faith and in the spirit of the bargain derive their content from the other express provisions of the contract. As Lady Justice Arden explained in Re Coroin Ltd ( No 2) [2013] EWCA Civ 781, [2013] 2 BCLC 583 (at [50]–[53]), such duties cannot widen a party’s commitments because, absent explicit direction in the agreement, the court lacks any standard by which to police the obligation. The practical effect of a clause of this kind is to demand performance aligned with the parties’ common objectives when they entered the deal; it is ‘no more than a reflection of the...

Rowland v Blades [2021] EWHC 426 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? Common intention vs resulting trust The judge concluded the property was not a business venture, albeit there was an investment aspect. It was therefore handled in line with dwelling house/family home authorities. The starting presumption from Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17, [2007] 2 All ER 929—affirmed in Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53, [2012] 1 All ER 1265—that equity tracks the legal title so the parties are beneficial joint tenants in equal proportions, applied. The Privy Council decision in Marr v Collie [2017] UKPC 17 did not dislodge this, as the acquisition arose in a domestic rather than commercial setting. Evidence This ruling underscores the evidential weight of contemporaneous documents, particularly where witness accounts directly conflict. Compensation under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 ( TOLATA 1996) vs...

Merritt v Thurrock Council and Midos Management Co Ltd [2021] EW Misc 2 ( CC) What are the practical implications of this case for the foreseeable future in light of the pandemic? The judgment reinforces the effect of the Supreme Court’s ruling in R( N) v Lewisham London Borough Council [2015] AC 1259, confirming that where a local authority grants accommodation under temporary homelessness duties or powers, it may, when the tenancy or licence ends, recover possession without issuing possession proceedings. The same assurance matters to private accommodation providers, who often shoulder the practical step of retaking premises at the conclusion of the let and must be confident that doing so complies with the law. What was the background? In October 2018, the claimant sought homelessness assistance from Thurrock Council. The council accepted the main housing duty owed to them under section 193 of the Housing Act 1996 ( HA...

As outlined in the editorial note to the Guide, this seventh edition is a comprehensive overhaul and reflects developments since the previous edition, including: the roll-out of electronic working and filing in the Central Office of the Queen’s Bench Division at the Royal Courts of Justice, through the CE- File digital court file and management system amendments to CPR 53 and CPR PD 53 relating to the Media and Communications List changes arising from Brexit and the close of the transition period under the UK Withdrawal Act revisions to the contempt regime updates to the enforcement regime For more information, see: What are the key changes? The following summarises the principal changes practitioners should note: Electronic filing The revised Guide introduces a brand-new Chapter 3 addressing electronic filing and codifying the compulsory use of CE- File for legally...

Adams v Jones [2021] UKUT 9 ( LC) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling carries significant weight for agricultural law specialists, notably those advising on Welsh holdings. Under the AHA 1986, any bid to succeed to an AHA-protected tenancy must be lodged within three months of the former tenant’s death, and that window is not capable of extension. Those who may apply are the deceased’s surviving close relatives whose principal means of livelihood during the seven years preceding death derived from agricultural work carried out on the holding. Where an applicant files in time but identifies the wrong respondent landlord, the defect can now be remedied by substituting the correct landlord even after the three‑month limit has passed, notwithstanding the lack of any tribunal provision comparable to CPR 19.5 concerning adding parties outside a limitation period. The judgment further...

When can a developer drain onto neighbouring land without permission? ( Bernel v Canal & River Trust) Bernel Ltd v Canal and River Trust [2021] EWHC 16 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this decision? The riparian claim and the prescriptive claim presented quite different factual and legal issues. Both aspects of the dispute will be of real interest to property practitioners. To determine the riparian issue, the judge had to set out and apply, carefully and in some detail, the law on when an intermittent or occasional flow is sufficient to amount to a natural watercourse, and when it is not. Because extensive rights accompany the presence of a natural watercourse on or adjoining land (the riparian rights), this boundary is legally significant, and not always straightforward to draw in practice on the ground. Although the...

O’ Neil v Holland [2020] EWCA Civ 1583 What are the practical implications of this case? Lord Justice Henderson confirmed that proof of detrimental reliance is a core precondition for a common intention constructive trust. That requirement had earlier been articulated in Grant v Edwards [1986] Ch 638 and was treated as assumed on appeal in Curran v Collins [2015] EWCA Civ 404, [2016] 1 FLR 505. O’ Neill v Holland provides the most explicit recent statement that a party must establish detrimental reliance to demonstrate the existence of such a trust. It also stands as authority that appealing to unconscionability alone will not suffice, and that the question of detrimental reliance is judged objectively. Advisers considering whether a common intention constructive trust arises must therefore pinpoint the exact basis on which the claimant acted, to their disadvantage, in reliance on the shared...

Mathewson v Crump and another [2020] EWHC 3167 ( QB) What are the practical implications of this case? The decision underscores the significance of timing and, crucially, the extent of control when deciding if a defendant is an occupier for the purposes of the OLA 1957. It cautions against conflating ownership with occupation. Control remains the key indicator of occupation and must be assessed within the factual context, which includes, among other things, who grants permission to go onto the property. Procedurally, the matter was notable because the court directed a split trial—liability and then quantum—on the first day (at paras [8]–[9]), apparently, at least in part, to give the claimant acting in person an opportunity to put his affairs in order. The judge observed that the claimant ‘would very much benefit from legal advice and representation when it came to arguing the quantum part of the...

Bath Rugby Ltd v Greenwood and others [2020] EWHC 2662 ( Ch); Bath Rugby Ltd v Greenwood and others [2020] EWHC 2856 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling offers a helpful survey and reaffirmation of what is needed for the annexation of the benefit of restrictive covenants made before the Law of Property Act 1925 took effect. While covenants of such vintage now seldom surface in property disputes—the one here dating back almost a hundred years—the judgment is of broader relevance for its treatment of annexation and its discussion of Crest Nicholson Residential ( South) Ltd v Mc Allister [2004] EWCA Civ 410, a post‑1925 covenant case. In particular, it considers Chadwick LJ’s remark that, for annexation to bite, the land intended to take the benefit must be ‘easily ascertainable’. Bath Rugby further exemplifies how the court...

Fantini (as executor of the estate of Iris Mary Fantini (deceased)) v Scrutton and others [2020] EWHC 1552 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? This decision narrows the ability of co-owners holding as joint tenants (and of the personal representatives or will beneficiaries of such persons) to treat efforts to serve a compliant notice of severance, and to lodge a matching restriction, as having themselves brought about a severance. It underscores, for advisers, the critical need to ensure proper service of any notice of severance—especially where clients are nearing the end of life or following the breakdown of a relationship—since it is now evident that mere attempts to do so, or to take related steps, may not in themselves achieve severance. The judgment also illuminates the boundaries of the principle that the court will favour a tenancy in...

Hillingdon Borough Council v Persons Unknown and others [2020] EWHC 2153 ( QB) What are the practical implications of this case? There is a persistent conflict between the workings of the courts and the wish of individuals to advance political and/or environmental causes. That friction lies at the core of the judge’s ruling in this matter. It was plain that the court had to neutrally weigh the fundamental liberties protected by human rights law against the council’s duty and right to safeguard the public from unlawful occupation and from unreasonable nuisance and annoyance on its land. In the end, the judge decided that because protesters could still continue their demonstrations on the land, they did not need to erect a camp or remain overnight, and they should not engage in conduct that creates unreasonable nuisance and annoyance in any manner...

Pengelly v Business Mortgage Finance 4 plc [2020] EWHC 2002 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? Practitioners will recognise that the agreements reviewed in this matter are largely boilerplate—typical and widely used across the market. Its consequences are likely to be extensive. The broker’s terms given to the borrower provided that it might obtain payments from lenders to whom it introduced mortgages, and that, before arranging a loan, it would set out the fee in writing; where the fee was below £250 it would confirm receipt of up to that figure, and where the fee was £250 or more it would specify the exact amount. The brokers probably took two streams of commission—one from the borrower and another from the lender. The lender accepted that it routinely paid a 2–4% commission, but expected the broker to handle...

What are the practical implications of this case? It marks the definitive end for using separate relativity graphs for property beyond PCL. For years, valuers have contended that existing leases outside PCL command a higher proportion of the freehold than those within PCL, rendering PCL graphs irrelevant. That stance can no longer stand. If they wish to argue that existing leases exceed the levels implied by PCL graphs, they must now substantiate it with market evidence. In the near term, this translates into higher premiums for flat tenants outside PCL seeking lease extensions where the unexpired term is below 80 years. Their most realistic prospect of relief lies in government adopting a Law Commission recommendation to reduce or abolish marriage value. What was the background? A tenant holding a long lease of a flat is entitled to a 90-year extension under section 56 of the...

Dowse and another v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council [2020] UKUT 202 ( LC) What are the practical implications of this case? The doctrine of adverse possession has long sat awkwardly with the regime of registered land and its mirror principle—the expectation that the register alone should reveal all key details about a parcel, including who owns it. That is why the LRA 2002 dramatically curtailed a squatter’s capacity to acquire title to registered land: the primacy of the title register should, in general, prevail. This decision is important because it gives unequivocal effect to that position. Unless a squatter can demonstrate 12 years’ adverse possession of registered land completed before the LRA 2002 took effect, the registered proprietor holds the upper hand. So long as the statutory process is properly followed, there are only three tightly confined situations in which a...

N3 Living Ltd v Burgess Property Investments Ltd and anothe r [2020] EWHC 1711 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? The appointment of a second trustee under section 36(6) of the Trustee Act 1925 within the TR1 transfer, to receive the sale proceeds, is a proper and standard means of satisfying a Form A restriction so as to confer good title on the purchaser, free from the interest protected by that restriction. This approach, set out in HM Land Registry’s Practice Guide 21, aligns with the general law of overreaching. Provided the wording of the restriction and the requirements of the LRA 2002 and the Land Registration Rules 2003, SI 2003/1417 are met, a purchaser will obtain good title and be registered as proprietor free of any such interest, and need not be troubled by the character of the interest or trust...

On 29 April 2020, the Fire Safety Bill received its second reading in the House of Commons and was also referred to a Public Bill Committee. The Bill will amend the Regulatory Reform ( Fire Safety) Order 2005, SI 2005/1541, to provide clearer guidance on the duties of the Responsible Person or duty-holder in multi-occupied, residential premises. Currently, under the Fire Safety Order, fire and rescue authorities hold enforcement powers over the shared parts of blocks of flats, for example entrance halls and landings. They do not possess such powers beyond the front doors of flats to act within individual homes, nor do they also have powers concerning the exterior of buildings. The Fire Safety Bill proposes amendments to the scope of the Fire Safety Order to make clear that the responsible person or duty-holder for multi-occupied residential buildings must manage and reduce fire risk relating to the...

Beaumont Business Centres Ltd v Florala Properties Ltd [2020] EWHC 550 ( Ch) What are the practical implications? Rights of light are a significant species of property right, and the courts have shown a readiness to uphold them, including by granting injunctions where required. Where relief is sought before any potentially infringing works begin, the courts will commonly grant the necessary order. This judgment confronted, and resolved, trickier issues: Whether the court will still step in when the works are already complete by the time of the hearing; and What the position is if, by then, the offending premises are occupied by a tenant. The case is noteworthy given the uncertainty that has prevailed since the Supreme Court’s decision in Coventry v Lawrence [2014] AC 822, which rejected the rigid use of the ‘good working rule’ for granting injunctions to restrain...

Poste Hotels Ltd v Cousins [2020] EWHC 582 ( Ch) The central question was whether the defendant enjoyed a parking easement giving her the liberty to leave a vehicle in Church Court, Stamford. The County Court judge found that she had acquired such a parking right by prescription, and the claimant challenged that conclusion on appeal. What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling restates key principles on prescriptive easements that advisers should note: Where there are two plausible lawful bases for the use, and the pattern of enjoyment fits either explanation equally, use as of right is not made out A prior grant of a right of way across the car park did not prevent the car park owner from being capable of granting a (hypothetical) right to park, which would operate subject to the earlier right of way;...

Pillmoor (as trustee of the bankruptcy estate of Mohammed Erfan Miah) v Miah and another [2019] EWHC 3696 ( Ch), [2019] All ER ( D) 211 ( Oct) What are the practical implications of this case? This decision offers practical direction on claims where one spouse seeks a beneficial stake in a property not held in their legal name. The judgment clarified the threshold for proving a common intention constructive trust, identifying what will, and will not, suffice. The party asserting the interest must adduce evidence of either an explicit arrangement to share the beneficial ownership, or facts from which such an accord can properly be inferred. Accordingly, proof should address matters that bore on ownership and family finances, including: discussions between the spouses that touched on the question of ownership; the role each spouse played in the...