‘Whether you’re considering a cruise, a new kitchen, or just giving money to the children, the thought of liberating that cash from the value of your house is enticing.’
BBC News, 19th September 2015
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Richard Holme, Chartered Accountant of Creaseys, a firm which specialises in advising family lawyers on tax related family law issues, explains the Budget changes of most relevance to family lawyers.’
Family Law Week, 8th July 2015
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘For reasons that will become clear in this post, rentcharges are a bit of a legal oddity. It has been a new realm for me, but I was intrigued by this case, and wiser members of the NL collective have held my hand as I headed down this particular rabbit hole.’
Nearly Legal, 8th June 0215
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Scott v. Southern Pacific Mortgages Ltd, in which the Supreme Court gave judgment on 22nd October 2014, has finally determined, in favour of the mortgagees, the question of priority between home owners, who had sold their homes under sale and leaseback schemes after getting into financial difficulties in return for the grant of a tenancy from the purchaser, and the mortgagees who provided the finances for the purchases. In order for the home owners’ unregistered interests to override a registered disposition under the Land Registration Act 2002, the interest had to be a proprietary interest, but prior to acquiring the legal estate a purchaser could not grant equitable rights of a proprietary character, as opposed to personal rights.’
Full story (PDF)
Radcliffe Chambers, 10th February 2015
Source: www.radcliffechambers.com
‘A judge has rejected claims that the lender illegally increased its tracker rates for buy-to-let customers.’
Daily Telegraph, 29th January 2015
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘A gang of people who carried out an “audacious” mortgage fraud worth more than £5m have been jailed.’
BBC News, 18th December 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘We have dealt with the basic facts in Scott v Southern Pacific Mortgages Ltd [2014] UKSC 52 when considering its previous incarnations (Cooke v Mortgage Business [2012] EWCA Civ 17 and Re North East Property Buyers Ltd [2010] EWHC 2991 (Ch)). In summary, the basic question for the Supreme Court was this: where a seller has agreed, prior to the contract of sale, that the buyer will grant the seller a tenancy after the sale, does the seller have that right so as not only to bind the buyer but also the buyer’s lender? I think, when framed as a question like that, the answer seems obvious. Call me a weak-kneed liberal, but all the equity (colloquially speaking) is in favour of the seller. They have entered in to the transaction on that basis and would not have entered in to the transaction otherwise. We all make bad deals which the law doesn’t get us out of, but the equity isn’t really in our favour: why should the law get us out of a bad deal?’
Nearly Legal, 14th December 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Having your home repossessed by your mortgagee is not, one imagines, a happy experience, and not one which would incline you to act charitably towards your bank. Few are the defaulting borrowers who treat their houses to a spring clean on their final day before the order for possession is executed, apologising to the bailiffs that they don’t seem able to put their hands on any tea bags. Or indeed the kettle. It’s all been packed, you see. A commoner experience is to find that at least some belongings have been left behind. A bin bag here, a wonky shelving unit there. There’s nothing like losing your home to make you reassess the stuff which surrounds you, and decide whether now might be a good time to de-clutter your life. And why go to the expense of hiring a skip when you can leave your mortgagee with the cost of doing it for you?’
Hardwicke Chambers, 11th December 2014
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court has confirmed the risks of sale and rent back arrangements in Southern Pacific Mortgages Ltd v Scott [2014] UKSC 52. Mrs Scott was the vendor in a sale and rent back. Against her knowledge the purchaser had obtained a mortgage to fund the purchase of her home and defaulted, causing it to be repossessed. She was unsuccessful in arguing that her lease took priority to the mortgage.’
New Square Chambers, 28th November 2014
Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk
‘The recent High Court judgment Titan Europe 2006-3 Plc v Colliers International UK Plc [2014] EWHC 3106 (Comm) regarding commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) reflects judicial dislike of legal lacunas that let professionals perform sub-standard services without the risk of paying out damages in negligence. It is a ruling of significance to the finance industry that could give some individuals who lost out when the recession revealed that their investments were worth less than they had been told a way of recovering their money. ‘
Hardwicke Chambers, 20th November 2014
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court recently gave judgment in the case of AIB Group (UK) Plc v Mark Redler & Co Solicitors [2014] UKSC 58. The decision provides an important treatment of equitable compensation within the wider scheme of remedial rules.’
Littleton Chambers, 26th November 2014
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘The law on relationship breakdown differs between couples who are cohabiting and married couples. Under English Law the concept of common-law wife/husband does not exist. If an unmarried couple live together in a property owned by both of them, they need to be careful to express at the outset what they intend as to property ownership. If they intend it to be an equal ownership they should state this or differing percentages.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 25th November 2014
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
‘The North East Property Buyers litigation test cases finally reached the Supreme Court and judgment was handed down on 22nd October 2014. Any practitioner in property and housing litigation in the North East, and indeed further afield, will have had some knowledge of, or dealings with, schemes such as were in these cases examined. They concerned sale and lease back agreements, a simple enough notion, involving the purchase of a vendor’s home by a nominee, often at an undervalue, in return granting the vendor a lease of the property, thereby releasing equity to the vendor and allowing them to remain in the property at a reduced rent.’
Full story (PDF)
Zenith Chambers, 24th October 2014
Source: www.zenithchambers.co.uk
‘Lenders can only be compensated for actual losses that stem from a breach of trust in commercial transactions, the Supreme Court has confirmed.’
OUT-LAW.com, 11th November 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
AIB Group (UK) Plc (Appellant) v Mark Redler & Co Solicitors (Respondent) [2014] UKSC 58 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 5th November 2014
‘A purchaser of a property could not grant equitable rights of a proprietary character prior to acquisition of the legal estate.’
WLR Daily, 22nd October 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘”We all want to see a system where it is only the very rich that pay inheritance tax, and not hard working people.”
Those were the words of David Cameron during Prime Minister’s Questions last week.’
BBC News, 24th October 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘A firm that purchased properties in the north east of England on the condition that the previous owners would be entitled to remain in their homes indefinitely was not in a position to make such a promise, the UK’s highest court has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 23rd October 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
Scott (Appellant) v Southern Pacific Mortgages Limited (Respondents) [2014] UKSC 52 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 22nd October 2014
‘Lenders must be careful to ensure that they do not lose the right to enforce their remaining rights under a security agreement when they choose to enforce only part of it, the Court of Appeal has warned.’
OUT-LAW.com, 20th October 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024