‘The basic ingredients for proprietary estoppel are well known, and many property practitioners would feel comfortable in spotting an estoppel when it has arisen. However, there is a shadowy question that is often avoided – assuming the estoppel is established, what is the actual result? After all, that is what the client will be most interested in!’
St Ives Chambers, 23rd April 2020
Source: www.stiveschambers.co.uk
‘“No Oral Modification” clauses (“NOMs”) are regularly found in the boilerplate clauses towards the back of contracts. They are designed, and included, to try to impose some formality on future changes to the contractual arrangement between the parties. But does this work, and, if so, how? The conceptual difficulty with such clauses has been around for centuries.’
Wilberforce Chambers, 5th December 2019
Source: www.wilberforce.co.uk
‘This is a rather odd case concerning possession of a farmhouse in the Forest of Dean. It had been first occupied by the defendant’s mother and step father in 1993. The terms of this were in dispute, but the rent was £155 and the step-father was to undertake repairs and maintenance to the property. The step-father did carry out some repairs, but he moved out in 2002, visiting and leaving some possessions there thereafter. The mother moved out in 2006. Various other family and friends lived at the property in subsequent years. The defendant had rented and bought property of his own, but took on repairs to the farmhouse and regarded it as his family home.’
Nearly Legal, 17th November 2019
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘The High Court has provided guidance to parties on the application of the payment provisions in the 1996 Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act (“Construction Act”) to “hybrid” contracts, which cover both construction and non-construction operations.’
OUT-LAW.com, 10th October 2019
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘A court of appeal decision on a first instance application, where the main issue was whether, given an historic possession order, the landlord could bring fresh possession proceedings.’
Nearly Legal, 24th March 2019
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Lord Briggs at the Denning Society Annual Lecture, Lincoln’s Inn.’
Supreme Court, 8th November 2018
Source: www.supremecourt.uk
‘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.’
Tanfield Chambers, 6th August 2018
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘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).’
Family Law, 4th July 2018
Source: www.familylaw.co.uk
‘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).’
Nearly Legal, 8th January 2018
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘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….’
Tanfield Chambers, 20th July 2017
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘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).’
Litigation Futures, 8th August 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘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”).’
Hardwicke Chambers, 18th January 2017
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘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.’
Arden Chambers, 16th February 2017
Source: www.ardenchambers.com
‘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.’
Littleton Chambers, 26th January 2017
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘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.’
Tanfield Chambers, 26th January 2017
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘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.’
Tanfield Chambers, 2nd February 2017
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘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).’
Nearly Legal, 10th August 2016
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘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.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 21st July 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘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.’
Henderson Chambers, June 2016
Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024