Welcome to the Summer 2016 edition of the Real Estate
In this edition of the Real Estate Bulletin we cover a
kaleidoscope of recent property cases:
The Courts remain reluctant to
interfere in commercial negotiations by placing obligations on
proposed joint venture partners acquiring a property when their
relationship subsequently breaks down
The High Court reminds us of what is
necessary for a surrender to take effect by operation of law
Another decision on the application
of the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 in relation to
guarantors, this time the High Court considered the validity of an
assignment of a lease by a tenant to its guarantor
The Court of Appeal departs from the
position set out by the Supreme Court in Coventry v Lawrence in
relation to a landlord's liability for nuisance committed by a
tenant when it comes to nuisance caused by a licensee
The High Court tries to balance the
competing interests of a tenant's right to quiet enjoyment and
a landlord's right to carry out development/building works
around the tenant
Conveyancers found liable in a recent
fraud case. The importance of due diligence in property
The Supreme Court confirms the basis
on which prescriptive rights over land are acquired
To read this newsletter in full, please click
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) decided that the costs of claims consultants assisting in adjudication enforcement proceedings can be recovered as disbursements, assuming that those consultants acted in the adjudication.
The requirements of a valid payment notice issued under a construction contract were considered in a previous update: "A Payment Notice? Be Clear?" with reference to the case of Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust v Logan Construction (South East) Ltd  ("Surrey and Sussex") a decision of the English High Court.
VL's appeal was against a decision by LBC on a review of an earlier refusal to provide VL and her family with housing on the grounds that she was not homeless, or threatened with homelessness, finding she had accommodation available to her in Portugal.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).