When One Purchaser Signs the Contract for Sale and the Other Does Not … – Radcliffe Chambers

Posted February 21st, 2017 in appeals, contracts, deposits, news, sale of land by sally

‘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.’

Part One (PDF)
Part Two (PDF)

Radcliffe Chambers, February 2017

Source: www.radcliffechambers.com

Approaching Deposit Orders After H v Ishmail – Littleton Chambers

Posted February 17th, 2017 in deposits, employment tribunals, news by sally

‘Deposit orders can be a useful tool for respondents facing unmeritorious claims. This is particularly true for discrimination or whistleblowing claims, which are notoriously difficult to get struck out. A separate deposit order can be made in respect of each allegation in a claim, not just each claim, and this can be useful where the claims make wide-ranging allegations over a long period.’

Full story

Littleton Chambers, 19th January 2017

Source: www.littletonchambers.com

The agreements that weren’t – Nearly Legal

Posted September 6th, 2016 in deposits, landlord & tenant, news, trusts by sally

‘Every now and again there is a reminder of the problems of a contractual tenancy. In this case, the difficulties involved a deposit of £52,000 and a weekly rent of £6,500.’

Full story

Nearly Legal, 5th September 2016

Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk

Buyer beware – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted July 26th, 2016 in damages, deposits, misrepresentation, news, penalties, rescission, sale of land by sally

‘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).’

Full story

Hardwicke Chambers, 25th July 2016

Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk

Deposit Dilemmas – Tanfield Chambers

Posted July 12th, 2016 in contracts, deposits, news, repayment, rescission, sale of land by sally

‘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.’

Full story

Tanfield Chambers, 6th July 2016

Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk

From the County Courts – deposits, evictions and introductory tenancies – Nearly Legal

‘Some county court cases reported in the indispensable ‘Housing: Recent Developments’ in Legal Action for May 2016. Cases involve introductory tenancies, deposits, harassment and illegal eviction.’

Full story

Nearly Legal, 12th June 2016

Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk

Deposits, leaflets and company landlords – Nearly Legal

Posted April 19th, 2016 in appeals, deposits, documents, landlord & tenant, news, repossession by sally

‘This was an appeal of a possession order made against Mr Bali at Lambeth County Court. Mr B was the assured shorthold tenant of Manaquel Company Limited. A deposit was taken and protected. Manaquel subsequently purportedly served a section 21 notice and brought possession proceedings. At first instance, the issue was whether Manaquel had complied with the requirements on serving the Prescribed Information.’

Full story

Nearly Legal, 18th April 2016

Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk

Deposits, dog hairs, doors and defamation – Nearly Legal

Posted November 23rd, 2015 in animals, appeals, defamation, deposits, housing, landlord & tenant, news, privilege by sally

‘As if tenancy deposits weren’t complicated enough, now we can add libel claims to the consequences of a heated deposit dispute. It turns out that sending potentially libellous accusations to the deposit scheme adjudication service is possibly covered by qualified privilege.’

Full story

Nearly Legal, 21st November 2015

Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk

Professional Negligence: Let the Client Decide what matters – 36 Bedford Row Property Blog

‘The High Court has given a reminder of the important qualification to the general principle that a lawyer, or licensed conveyancer, is not obliged to undertake investigations that are not expressly or impliedly requested by the client. The principle is subject to the qualification that: if in fact a solicitor acquires information that may be of importance to a client; then it is the duty of the solicitor to bring that information to the attention of the client. It is the client who decides whether the information is important; the lawyer should not presume to make that decision. Failing to consider information, to advise the client or even pass on such information to the client can be costly. It is safer to communicate too much rather than too little.’

Full story

36 Bedford Row Property Blog, 27th October 2015

Source: www.36property.co.uk

Making sense of deposits. Nearly. – Nearly Legal

Posted August 25th, 2015 in deposits, housing, landlord & tenant, news, penalties by sally

‘It started as such a simple idea, the tenancy deposit regulations. But bad drafting and some ‘interesting’ interpretations by the Courts put paid to that. We now have a confusing mess, for both landlords and tenants.’
Full story

Nearly Legal, 24th August 2015

Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk

How late it was, how late – Nearly Legal

Posted June 30th, 2015 in deposits, housing, landlord & tenant, news, time limits by sally

‘A County Court deposit protection case, and an illustration of some of the ways in which landlords still haven’t figured out how the deposit rules work.’

Full story

Nearly Legal, 29th June 2015

Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk

Ng and another v Charalambous and another – WLR Daily

Posted December 19th, 2014 in deposits, housing, landlord & tenant, law reports, repossession by sally

Ng and another v Charalambous and another [2014] EWCA Civ 1604; [2014] WLR (D) 540

‘Section 213 of the Housing Act 2004, as amended, which provided that any tenancy deposit paid to a person in connection with a shorthold tenancy in existence on 6 April 2012 had to be dealt with in accordance with an authorised scheme, was concerned not with the date at which the deposit was received but with the date on which the tenancy was in effect. Where such a deposit was not held in an authorised scheme, having been received before the relevant date, the sanctions for non-compliance in section 215(1) nevertheless applied so as to preclude the landlord from serving on the tenant a valid notice stating that possession was required under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988.’

WLR Daily, 16th December 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

The strike down of Superstrike: Where are we now with tenancy deposits? – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted August 7th, 2014 in deposits, housing, landlord & tenant, news by sally

‘Most landlords of residential property take a deposit as security for their tenant’s liabilities. Since 1996 the vast majority of tenancies granted by private landlords and many tenancies granted by Registered Providers of housing have been assured shorthold tenancies (“ASTs”).’

Full story

Hardwicke Chambers, 6th August 2014

Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk

English landlords will not need to re-comply with tenancy deposit requirements when tenancy ‘rolls over’ – OUT-LAW.com

Posted June 23rd, 2014 in appeals, bills, deposits, landlord & tenant, news, repossession, time limits by sally

‘English landlords that secured deposits from fixed-term tenants would not have to re-comply with the deposit protection rules if that tenancy later ‘rolls over’ to become a statutory periodic tenancy or if the landlord enters into a new tenancy with the same tenant for the same premises, the UK government has proposed.’

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 20th June 2014

Source: www.out-law.com

Rogue landlords exploit deposit protection loophole – The Guardian

Posted June 20th, 2014 in consumer protection, deposits, landlord & tenant, news by tracey

‘Legislation to rein in bad landlords and agents can leave tenants out of pocket.’

Full story

The Guardian, 19th June 2014

Source: www.guardian.co.uk

The Tenant (Super)Strikes Back – NearlyLegal

Posted May 9th, 2014 in deposits, housing, landlord & tenant, news by sally

‘As we noted when writing up Superstrike Ltd v Rodrigues [2013] EWCA Civ 669 (see our note, here), the case left open an interesting – and important – question. If a fixed term has expired and a statutory periodic tenancy arisen, do the requirements in s.213, Housing Act 2004 (deal with the deposit in accordance with an authorised scheme; comply with any initial requirements of the scheme; provide the prescribed information in the Housing (Tenancy Deposits) (Prescribed Information) Order 2007) arise again? If they do, does non-compliance render s.21 notices invalid (s.215)and/or expose landlords to the statutory damages (s.214).’

Full story

NearlyLegal, 8th May 2014

Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk

Early Compliance – NearlyLegal

Posted April 14th, 2014 in appeals, deposits, judicial review, landlord & tenant, news, repossession by sally

‘This is a slightly surprising case involving a judicial review of refusal of permission to appeal.’

Full story

NearlyLegal, 11th April 2014

Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk

Strike while the iron’s hot – recent developments in Tenancy Deposits, with more surely on the way – Zenith Chambers

Posted October 15th, 2013 in appeals, deposits, landlord & tenant, news, repossession by sally

“The facts of this new Court of Appeal decision – on the effect of a change in tenancy status on a landlord’s duty to protect a tenancy deposit – are deceptively simple. Its wider effects on claims to recover possession are yet to be felt.”

Full story

Zenith Chambers, 10th October 2013

Source: www.zenithchambers.co.uk

The test to be applied for ordering deposits Spring v First Capital East Ltd – No. 5 Chambers

Posted June 18th, 2013 in costs, deposits, news, payment into court, tribunals by sally

“Although usually sought by employers, either party may apply to a tribunal for an order that the other party pay a deposit as a condition of continuing to argue a particular matter if the tribunal is satisfied that the contentions put forward by that party have ‘little reasonable prospects of success’: Rule 20(1) of Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004.”

Full story

No. 5 Chambers, 6th June 2013

Source: www.no5.com

Superstrike Ltd v Rodrigues – WLR Daily

Posted June 18th, 2013 in appeals, deposits, landlord & tenant, law reports by sally

Superstrike Ltd v Rodrigues [2013] EWCA Civ 669; [2013] WLR (D) 235

“Where a tenant had paid a deposit under an assured shorthold tenancy for a fixed term which began before, but ended after, the commencement of section 213 of the Housing Act 2004, the landlord was obliged to deal with the deposit in accordance with an authorised scheme within 14 days of the coming into being of a new statutory periodic tenancy upon expiry of the fixed term; and by virtue of section 215(1) of the 2004 Act, non-compliance with that obligation precluded service by the landlord of a valid notice under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988.”

WLR Daily, 14th June 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk