Lord Briggs at the Denning Society Annual Lecture, Lincoln’s Inn – Supreme Court

Posted November 16th, 2018 in equity, estoppel, fiduciary duty, forfeiture, lectures, rectification, solicitors by tracey

‘Lord Briggs at the Denning Society Annual Lecture, Lincoln’s Inn.’

Full speech

Supreme Court, 8th November 2018

Source: www.supremecourt.uk

Bennett v Bennett & Others [2018] EWHC 1931 (Ch) – Tanfield Chambers

Posted August 6th, 2018 in contracts, estoppel, news, sale of land, trusts by sally

‘Tanfield barristers Marc Glover and Chloe Sheridan successfully represented the Claimants in a High Court dispute over East Thurrock United Football Club. In a judgment handed down on 25th July 2018, the Court dismissed the defendant’s and additional parties’ claims to a share in the land used by the Football Club, claimed to be worth £10 million.’

Full Story

Tanfield Chambers, 6th August 2018

Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk

Farming disputes and proprietary estoppel: Gee v Gee – Family Law

Posted July 5th, 2018 in agricultural holdings, appeals, estoppel, evidence, families, news, witnesses by tracey

‘In recent years there has been a procession of farming proprietary estoppel cases, the most famous of which was probably Davies v Davies [2016] EWCA Civ 463, [2017] 1 FLR 1286 with the claimant in that case capturing the media’s attention as the “Cowshed Cinderella”. On 11 June 2018 Mr Justice Birss, sitting in Bristol, handed down judgment on the latest, the case of Gee v Gee & Anor [2018] EWHC 1393 (Ch), [2018] All ER (D) 58 (Jun).’

Full Story

Family Law, 4th July 2018

Source: www.familylaw.co.uk

Beach huts: chattels, leases, estoppel – Nearly Legal

Posted January 9th, 2018 in estoppel, gifts, housing, leases, news by sally

‘Gilpin and ors v Legg [2017] EWHC 3220 (Ch) is a gift (at least to land law examiners) that is going to keep on giving. This is not just because of the claims discussed – whether beach huts were fixtures or chattels, whether a lease had been granted to the owners of the huts, whether the landowner was estopped from obtaining possession, and even certain pleadings issues (the pleadings do seem to have been a little, erm, jejeune) – but also because HHJ Matthews (who I’m ashamed to say I haven’t come across) added his tuppenies to a couple of controversies, not least making some important observations on the correctness of the Supreme Court judgment in Berrisford v Mexfield. Part of the problem in the case was that the events which underpinned the various claims happened over many years, were oral, and, in some cases, involved transfers of title (the issues of which were neatly stepped over by the judge who referred to bona fide purchasers, so we might be dealing with unregistered land, a point not made clear).’

Full Story

Nearly Legal, 8th January 2018

Source: nearlylegal.co.uk

Autumn Newsletter – Falcon Chambers

– Prescriptive easements – a glass half-full: out with the negative; in with the positive 10

– Keeping the Title Clean: Unwanted Notices and Restrictions 12

– Estoppel in Pre-Contractual Negotiations 15

– The Curse of the Freebie 17

– Voidable and no Mistake 20

Full Story

Falcon Chambers, November 2017

Source: www.falcon-chambers.com

Our House, in the middle of … Ambridge: Rogers v Burns – Tanfield Chambers

Posted August 22nd, 2017 in cohabitation, estoppel, housing, matrimonial home, news by sally

‘Thirty-something lovers Fallon Rogers (barmaid) and Harrison Burns (police constable) didn’t have much money between them. What little they had was Harrison’s – enough for a deposit on a modest house, in fact. Fed up with all the broken boilers and other hassles of renting, Harrison thought it would be an idea for them to look at buying a property. Fallon was unable to obtain financial assistance from any of her cash-strapped family to help her fund any such purchase. But all was not lost….’

Full Story

Tanfield Chambers, 20th July 2017

Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk

Appeal judges reject law firm’s claim for fees under insolvency CFA – Litigation Futures

Posted August 9th, 2017 in appeals, costs, estoppel, insolvency, news, solicitors by sally

‘The Court of Appeal has rejected a law firm’s claim to its legal fees in a battle with a liquidator over a conditional fee agreement (CFA).’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 8th August 2017

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Lessons in understanding: Unfairness and Estoppel by Convention in the Upper Tribunal – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted February 22nd, 2017 in estoppel, leases, news, service charges, tribunals by sally

‘Towards the end of last year, the Upper Tribunal (“UT”) handed down decisions in two cases involving estoppel by convention:

Admiralty Park Management Ltd v Ojo [2016] UKUT 0421 (LC) 8 September 2016 (“Ojo”); and

Bucklitsch and anor v Merchant Exchange Management Company Limited [2016] UKUT 0527 (LC) 13 December 2016 (“Bucklitsch”).’

Full story

Hardwicke Chambers, 18th January 2017

Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk

Jetha v Basildon Court Residents Company Ltd – Arden Chambers

Posted February 22nd, 2017 in appeals, covenants, estoppel, landlord & tenant, leases, news, service charges, tribunals by sally

‘The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) has given guidance on the approach to be followed by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) when considering whether there is an estoppel by convention which prevents a leaseholder from denying the payability of a service charge which has not been demanded in accordance with the terms of the lease.’

Full story

Arden Chambers, 16th February 2017

Source: www.ardenchambers.com

Marc Delehanty on the Enforceability of Promises Made Subsequent to Written Contracts: New Caselaw – Littleton Chambers

Posted February 20th, 2017 in agreements, appeals, contracts, estoppel, news by sally

‘Commercial litigators regularly encounter disputes which arise from parties’ attempts to renegotiate obligations under written agreements in situations where one party is having difficulty performing as required under the contract.’

Full story

Littleton Chambers, 26th January 2017

Source: www.littletonchambers.com

When is relief from forfeiture available? – Tanfield Chambers

Posted February 17th, 2017 in canals, estoppel, forfeiture, licensing, news, water by sally

‘Property analysis: Is relief from forfeiture only available to claimants with proprietary or possessory rights? Barrister Robert Bowker, of Tanfield Chambers, considers the recent High Court decision in General Motors UK v Manchester Ship Canal Company.’

Full story

Tanfield Chambers, 26th January 2017

Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk

Reeves v Young – Tanfield Chambers

Posted February 16th, 2017 in boundaries, costs, enforcement, estoppel, news, surveyors by sally

‘Third surveyors, the impartial arbiters of the party wall world, rarely feature prominently in party wall litigation. However, there have been two recent County Court cases in which the selection and purported removal of third surveyors has been considered by the Court, in both cases HHJ Bailey in the County Court at Central London.’

Full story

Tanfield Chambers, 2nd February 2017

Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk

The mechanics of proprietary estoppel – Nearly Legal

Posted August 12th, 2016 in appeals, constructive trusts, estoppel, news by sally

‘What is the difference between, on the one hand, Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd v Cobbe [2008] UKHL 55 and, on the other hand, Thorner v Majors [2009] UKHL 18? The standard answer is that Cobbe involved commercial parties who, well, ought to have known better than to rely on an incomplete agreement (no unconscionability), whereas, in Thorner, we were dealing with the delightfully taciturn farmers of the Quantock Hills (unconscionability in the circs).’

Full story

Nearly Legal, 10th August 2016

Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk

An (e)stopped clock is right twice a day: Is your engineer’s conduct a ticking time bomb? – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted July 26th, 2016 in construction industry, estoppel, news by sally

‘As the deluge of smash and grab adjudications continues to percolate through the construction industry, shrewd contractors are advancing more and more creative legal submissions as a way of reviving interim payment applications that have somewhere gone awry. Twice in the past year, the TCC has been addressed on the issue of whether a contractor can rely on an estoppel to resuscitate an interim application; and in one of those cases, that estoppel was created solely out of the actions of the contract administrator. Although the TCC has yet to fully articulate all of those situations in which the actions of the engineer or contract administrator are capable of giving rise to an estoppel, construction professionals would be wise to exercise a degree of caution and be wary of inadvertently bestowing such rights upon the contractor, much to the detriment of the employer.’

Full story

Hardwicke Chambers, 21st July 2016

Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk

Proprietary Estoppel: Recent Updates – Henderson Chambers

Posted July 13th, 2016 in appeals, compensation, equity, estoppel, news by sally

‘Proprietary estoppel is a flexible and useful cause of action. Instances of parties claiming entitlement to equitable relief by way of proprietary estoppel have increased markedly in the last few years. Proprietary estoppel is often pleaded in addition to other causes of action, such as resulting trusts, common intention constructive trusts and contract claims. Consequently it is an important area of law for property, family and commercial practitioners.’

Full story

Henderson Chambers, June 2016

Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk

In re Zavarco (No 2); Blomqvist v Zavarco plc and another (No 2); Blomqvist v Teoh and others – WLR Daily

Posted June 3rd, 2016 in company directors, company law, estoppel, law reports, shareholders by sally

In re Zavarco (No 2); Blomqvist v Zavarco plc and another (No 2); Blomqvist v Teoh and others [2016] EWHC 1143 (Ch)

‘The shareholder claimed to have purchased a 66·6% share in the company, a United Kingdom holding company of a group operating in South East Asia. Following a substantial fall in the share price the shareholder requested that the directors call a general meeting of the company, which, by section 303 of the Companies Act 2006, they were required to do if they received requests from members representing at least 5% of the paid-up capital of the company. The directors refused to call the general meeting requested, contending that the shareholder’s shares were in fact not paid up. The shareholder served a notice pursuant to section 305 of the 2006 Act, by which a shareholder was entitled to call a meeting if the directors had wrongfully refused to do so. The company subsequently informed the shareholder that it had issued further shares to a Malaysian company reducing his shareholding to 1·17%. The shareholder commenced two actions, one by a petition for a declaration that the notice served by him under section 305 of the 2006 Act was valid and effective and a direction that the general meeting be held, and the other, by a Part 8 claim form for an order rectifying the company’s register of members to delete the additional share issue for want of authorisation.’

WLR Daily, 17th May 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Auzins v Prosecutor General’s Office of the Republic of Latvia – WLR Daily

Posted April 20th, 2016 in abuse of process, estoppel, law reports, res judicata by sally

Auzins v Prosecutor General’s Office of the Republic of Latvia [2016] EWHC 802 (Admin)

‘The appellant was arrested in Latvia in connection with four offences of theft. He admitted guilt in relation to some of the offences and was released subject to certain conditions. In breach of those conditions he left Latvia and subsequently came to live in England. He was arrested in Scotland pursuant to a European arrest warrant (“EAW”) issued by the Latvian judicial authority, and extradition proceedings followed in the Sheriff Court. He resisted extradition on health grounds. A letter from the Latvian authorities accepted that the medical treatment available within the Latvian prison system for the treatment of the appellant’s medical problems would be insufficient and incompatible with European guidelines. The court concluded that, while there were no bars to extradition under the section 11(1) of the Extradition Act 2003, the appellant’s physical condition was such that it would be oppressive to extradite him. Three years later, a replacement, second, EAW was issued, reflecting the fact that one of the offences for which extradition had originally been sought had become time barred. The appellant was arrested pursuant to the second EAW in England. Updated evidence from the Latvian authorities showed that the position as to the availability of treatment for the appellant’s conditions had improved in the intervening period. Following a contested hearing, the district judge ordered the appellant’s extradition. The appellant challenged that decision on grounds, inter alia, that the district judge should have discharged him because: (i) the issue of his surrender was res judicata or subject to an issue estoppel on account of his discharge in the earlier Scottish proceedings for substantially the same matters; alternatively, (ii) in seeking his surrender the Latvian authorities were abusing the process of the court.’

WLR Daily, 14th April 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Proprietary Estoppel: Expectation or Detriment – New Square Chambers

Posted April 13th, 2016 in appeals, compensation, damages, enforcement, estoppel, news, proportionality by sally

‘Proprietary estoppel claims can give rise to a particular issue: should the measure of the claimant’s relief be compensation for detriment or, more generously, enforcement of the relevant promise or assurance?’

Full story

New Square Chambers, 11th April 2016

Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk

Leeds City Council v Waco UK Ltd [2015] EWHC 1400 (TCC) – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted February 23rd, 2016 in construction industry, estoppel, local government, news, remuneration, time limits by sally

‘The TCC had to determine whether an interim payment application made 6 days before the specified contractual date was rendered invalid for being too early. The key issue was whether it was possible that consistent failures to adhere to the contractual payment provisions would create an estoppel which would prevent an out of time payment application from being found invalid. Although Edwards-Stuart J found that it was arguable there was an estoppel for applications made a few days after the contractual date, there was no such estoppel for applications made early and so the application was found to be invalid.’

Full story

Hardwicke Chambers, 3rd February 2016

Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk

Dudley Muslim Association v Dudley MBC – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted December 9th, 2015 in appeals, contracts, enforcement, estoppel, local government, news, planning, sale of land by sally

‘Amanda Eilledge explores the availability of public law defences and promissory estoppel in the context of a contract for the sale of land following the decision in Dudley Muslim Association v Dudley MBC [2015] EWCA Civ 1123.’

Full story

Hardwicke Chambers, 9th December 2015

Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk