‘Canterbury City Council sold land on the seafront in Whitstable to a property developer for less than best consideration but the case was not appropriate for a quashing order, a High Court judge has ruled.’
Local Government Lawyer, 15th February 2017
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘This was Leeds’ second appeal of a Valuation Tribunal decision on council tax liability. We covered the first High Court appeal here. Full disclosure, I acted for the intervener in this second appeal, the Residential Landlords Association, with Justin Bates (or as it turns out, Bate) as counsel.’
Nearly Legal, 8th December 2016
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘A surveyor facing a professional negligence claim will only be able to argue a margin of error greater than 15% in the most exceptional of circumstances, the High Court has confirmed.’
OUT-LAW.com, 24th November 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The case throws up an interesting issue as to both the application and scope of the ‘but for’ test in professional negligence claims by lenders against valuers where there has been re-financing of the original lending transaction. The fact that the Court of Appeal was split in its decision, and the fact that an application for permission to appeal is currently outstanding to the Supreme Court, demonstrate the complexities of the legal position.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 4th November 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘We’ve seen the issue of who is liable for Council Tax when a tenant has left a property before the end of a periodic tenancy arise before. Here, the Upper Tribunal decided that a statutory periodic monthly tenancy following a 6 month fixed term did not amount to a ‘material interest’ of over six months such that the tenant would remain liable for Council Tax, while here in the Shropshire decision (and amusingly featuring NL) the Valuation Tribunal decided that a contractual periodic tenancy following on from a fixed term of 6 months did amount to a material interest such that the tenant remained liable.’
Nearly legal, 1st August 2016
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘The claims involved the valuation of premiums under the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. The UTLC listed three applications for the specific purpose of considering the validity of a hedonic regression model (“the Parthenia model”) to determine leasehold relativity. The Tribunal indicated the approach to be adopted for assessing relativity for different lease lengths and commented on the use of published relativity graphs.’
Tanfield Chambers, 21st June 2016
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘A lender was entitled to recover the full amount of a refinancing loan it granted after relying on a negligent property valuation, and not just the ‘top-up’ funding, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 6th July 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The deferment rate is a key input in every enfranchisement claim whether it relates to the enfranchisement of a house, block of flats or the extension of a flat lease. The current deferment rate was set by the Lands Tribunal in Earl Cadogan v Sportelli [2007] 1 EGLR 153. This article explains what the deferment rate is and how the Tribunal arrived at the value which has been universally adopted since the decision in Sportelli. It then explores the status of the decision in Sportelli and asks whether it is time to re-set the deferment rate. The last part of the article looks at deferment rates for shorter leases.’
Tanfield Chambers, 31st May 2016
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘A previous decision of the Upper Tribunal is admissible evidence of what it decided and it is a question of what weight a subsequent tribunal should give it. The extent to which the previous decision is a decision on general points of interest rather than specific facts and the cogency of the reasoning will impact on the weight to be given to a particular decision.’
Tanfield Chambers, 19th April 2016
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘A High Court judge has expressed concern at “the substantial degree of uncertainty that exists” in relation to how the courts, both magistrates and the bankruptcy county court, should deal with the enforcement of domestic council tax liability orders in the context of the availability of the remedy by way of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.’
Local Government Lawyer, 19th April 2016
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Coll (Listing Officer) v Mooney [2016] EWHC 485 (Admin) is a statutory appeal by the Appellant Listing Officer against the decision of the Valuation Tribunal for England (“VTE”) in which it ordered the Listing Officer to alter the valuation list to show one entry for a property, instead of two. The property was built as one dwelling, on three floors. However, at some point, the property was converted into two dwellings. It was listed as two separate units of property (hereditaments) when the valuation list for council tax was drawn up in 1993.’
Local Government Law, 22nd March 2016
‘Solicitors acting for both sides in property transactions are under a duty to disclose crucial details to lenders, the Court of Appeal has ruled..’
Legal Futures, 13th November 2015
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has suggested that a commercial mortgage-backed security (CMBS) issuer would be entitled to sue a surveyor for a potentially negligent valuation, despite overturning the finding of negligence itself.’
OUT-LAW.com, 6th November 2015
Source: www.out-law.com
Woolway (Valuation Officer) v Mazars LLP [2015] UKSC 53; [2015] WLR (D) 353
‘Where a business’s offices were on two separate floors of an office block, the communication between the two being solely by way of the block’s communal lift, those two floors comprised two separate hereditaments for the purposes of non-domestic rating.’
WLR Daily, 29th July 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Granting an option to purchase a shareholding to a party for a significant sum as relief for unfair prejudice was within the court’s discretion under the Companies Act 2006 s.996 despite valuation evidence showing the company was balance sheet insolvent.’
Tanfield Chambers, 14th July 2015
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘The recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Raymond v Young [2015] EWCA Civ 456 concerned the principles to be applied when considering what damages to award to property owners who were the victims of shocking harassment, trespass and nuisance conducted by their neighbours over a period of several years.’
New Square Chambers, 26th May 2015
Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk
‘This case is an interesting example of a claim for breach of confidence (both in contract and in equity) where, although liability was established, only nominal damages (£1) were awarded to the Claimant.’
RPC Privacy Law, 7th October 2014
Source: www.rpc.co.uk
Ageas (UK) Ltd v Kwik-Fit (GB) Ltd and another [2014] EWHC 2178 (QB); [2014] WLR (D) 407
‘It is was permissible to depart from the prima facie rule that damages following a breach of warranty in a share sale agreement were to be assessed at the date of breach and so to take into account events which had occurred after that date, where such departure was necessary to give effect to the overriding compensatory principle of assessment of damages.’
WLR Daily, 4th July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Fair compensation payable to a landowner in respect of the grant of statutory wayleave for an electricity power line, pursuant to paragraphs 6 and 7 of Schedule 4 to the Electricity Act 1989, was to be calculated by reference to the loss in value of the land and the principle of equivalence. Where a landowner had entered into a contract for the sale of land, which was conditional on the termination of an existing contractual wayleave for a power line and the removal of the line, and the Secretary of State had granted a statutory wayleave on the termination of the contractual one, the compensation to which the landowner was entitled was the difference between the contract price for the land in question at the valuation date and the open market value of the land once the statutory wayleave had been granted.’
WLR Daily, 3rd March 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘In ancillary relief proceedings, the largest assets are frequently the divorcing couple’s matrimonial home and pension rights. Whilst it is usually straightforward to ascertain the value of the former, accurately achieving this for the latter can be a highly technical exercise. Solicitors’ alleged failure to analyse pension transfer values is the subject of a spate of negligence claims currently being brought by former clients. No case is yet to be reported, but it is expected that a number will be during 2014.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 13th January 2014
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024