Speakers' Corner

Packemin Apartments Limited (“PA”) acquires a plot of prime development land for the construction of a block of luxury flats. Unfortunately, the land in question (“Plot A”) has no direct access to the main public highway. In order to obtain the required access to this public highway PA has to obtain the grant of a right of way over the land lying between the Plot A and the public highway.

Section 10 of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996 (‘the Act’) provides a now well-known and established mechanism for resolving disputes between building owners and adjoining owners in respect of matters concerned with works to which the Act relates, that is principally building on the line of the junction between different lands (s.1), the repair or rebuilding of party walls (s.2), and works of excavation within a specified distance of the adjoining owner’s building (s.6). Under s.10(10) the ‘agreed surveyor’ appointed by the parties, or more usually the two surveyors appointed by each of them working together, or the ‘third surveyor’ appointed by the two surveyors, settle the dispute by making an award.

Several property statutes contain a provision enabling a notice (or some other document) to be served by being “sent by post” (without prescribing any particular method of posting): see section 176(2) and (3) of the Housing Act 1985; section 54(2) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987; section 99(1) of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993; section 15(1) of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996 (“PWA 1996”); and section 111(1) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.

How damages for professional negligence are often assessed in the context of residential and commercial conveyancing.

Is the case of Edwards & Walkden v City of London consistent with the O’May decision in relation to changing terms of business tenancies on renewal or does it evidence a change in the approach of the Court?

1. The definition of “house” in s.2(1) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 has given rise to considerable difficulties in the 45 years since it was enacted. This year, there have been two further appellate decisions on the definition – Hosebay v Day [2012] 1 WLR 2884 in the Supreme Court (where Lord Carnwath gave the only judgment) and Magnohard Ltd v Cadogan [2012] L. & T.R. 32 in the Court of Appeal (where both Lewison LJ and Lord Neuberger gave judgments). Where do those decisions leave the law?

At their recent annual conference, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) Dilapidations Forum delegates soundly rejected any suggestion that the PLA Protocol should be scrapped. Inevitably though there are calls for the detail of the document to be revised (dilapidations surveyors are nothing if not persistent when it comes to finding disagreement!).

With the surge in mortgage repossessions, and a large buy-to-let market, it is timely to revisit the issue of the priority (or otherwise) of tenants in relation to mortgagees seeking possession.

When a contract for the sale of property falls through, the normal expectation is that where the fault lies with the buyer, the deposit paid on exchange of contracts will be forfeited. However, the Court is given a wide discretion to order the return of the deposit to the buyer. The precise extent of that discretion has been tested very recently in a judgment of the High Court (Midill (97PL) Limited v Park Lane Estates Limited & Anor [2008] EWHC 18 (Ch).

Dartmouth Court Blackheath Limited v Berisworth Limited [2008] EWHC (Ch) 350