The Claimant land owners were successful in their claim that the Defendants did not own two strips of land abutting their land. The transfers of adjacent parcels of land that abutted land that was later made into a road should be correctly interpreted as granting an immediate right over the land over which a road was proposed to be built.
|
The Appellant was successful in appealing against the decision of a judge that his purchase of a property and lease back was at an undervalue. Whilst the price was substantially lower than the unencumbered freehold value, the Respondent failed to show section 423 of IA 1986 applied as the premium value of the tenancy made up the shortfall in purchase price.
|
The Claimant was successful in its claim for specific performance of a contract for the sale of property despite the omission of plans of the property to the draft lease. The court was able to say that the required correction was clear.
|
The Appellant headlessee successfully appealed against a decision by the Lands Tribunal in relation to the valuation of a flat in relation to collective enfranchisement. Where an underlease provided service charge would include the costs to the lessor of the loss of rack rent on a property which had to be provided rent free, the Appellant headlessee was entitled to compensation via the service charge.
|
Reducing damages for wrongful premature termination of a time charter to take into account benefits enjoyed by the Owners after the notional date on which the Vessel would (but for the breach) have been re-deliveredN time chartered a vessel from D. N redelivered the Vessel prematurely. Faced with no available market, D ordered the Vessel to another location, dry-docked her then delivered her to another charterer. The Vessel earned a significantly higher rate under this subsequent charter. The Tr ...
|
An application by a liquidator to apply to join himself as a party to proceedings brought by a company against its former administrators and to bring a claim under s. 212 of the Insolvency Act after the expiry of the limitation period was permitted because the liquidator’s claim under s.212 was identical to that put forward originally by the company and was necessary because without a claim under s.212 the company’s claim would be struck out by reason of the administrators’ earlier statutory rel ...
|
Facilitating the payment of a sum of money to secure an agency agreement went far beyond the primary role of a law firm’s marketing manager even though she had a limited legal advisory role. Thus it would not be fair and just to hold the law firm vicariously liable for such acts if proved. Equally she was not acting within her actual or ostensible authority. Further as the payment of the money intended a breach of a fiduciary duty on the part of the recipient decision maker, a fact which must ha ...
|
Lorry Driver Fully Liable To Claimant Motorist Parked Illegally
Swift J held that the Defendant driver of an articulated lorry was liable for the personal injuries, loss and damage sustained by the Claimant motorist who had been standing behind the open driver’s side door of his vehicle which had been parked illegally within a controlled area of a pedestrian crossing. Swift J held that the Defendant had failed to see either the motorist or the open door and had failed to take any appropriate avoiding action and accordingly, had driven negligently. Further, S ...
|
Local Authority Owed No Duty To Procure Public Liability Insurance In Respect of Visitor to Horse Fair
The Court of Appeal held that the Appellant local authority did not owe a duty of care to procure public liability insurance in respect of members of the general public visiting a horse fair and covering serious personal injuries sustained by such a visitor (the First Respondent) as a result of being kicked by an untethered horse. The Court of Appeal held that there was no ‘special relationship’ as between the local authority and members of the general public so as to justify the imposition of s ...
|
Where an action for copyright infringement against four defendants had been settled as against the first three and discontinued as against the fourth, the claimant was liable for the costs the fourth defendant had incurred until the date the notice of discontinuance was served. Costs were awarded on an indemnity basis because of the claimant’s unreasonable behaviour in joining the fourth defendant, delaying progress and refusing to negotiate. The action had concerned infringement of copyright in ...
|
| 1 |