Updates

Real Property Update: February 2018

14th February 2018

Editors Comment

Kerry Bretherton QC

In this edition of the Tanfield property newsletter I have reviewed sources of evidence in boundary disputes and adverse possession claims.

Tim Hammond has provided the case summaries. Tim is of 2003 call and specialises in real property and landlord and tenant litigation. He recently appeared for the successful management company in Victory Place Management Co Ltd v (1) Florian Kuehn (2) Gabrielle Kuehn [2018] EWHC 132 (Ch), a case in which Vinnie the terrier was evicted from a £1.5 million penthouse flat in Limehouse. The case attracted a lot of media attention. He also recently appeared in the Court of Appeal acting for the successful Respondents in the matter of Kingley Developments Ltd v Brudenell and others [2016] EWCA Civ 980, a case involving the relative weight to be given to lay and expert evidence in circumstances of alleged forgery and wider property frauds.

‘Location, location, location’ requires ‘preparation, preparation, preparation’: Evidence in boundary disputes and claims for adverse possession

Those who practise in the field of boundary disputes and adverse possession will appreciate that the law in this area is fairly well settled, at least until the Property Boundaries (Resolution of Disputes) Bill becomes law, if indeed it ever does become law. The key to success in these cases will be the evidence and so it is helpful to review the principles relating to this evidence and most useful sources.

Read the full article here.

February Case Summaries

Tim Hammond provides this month’s case summaries:

Re Holden’s Application

Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 19 January 2018

Paul Holden (“H”) is the freehold owner of a property (“the Property”) forming part of a new estate of about 30 dwellings in Lincolnshire. The Property comprises a detached house with a detached double garage.

H had converted the garage for use as a dog grooming parlour.

Read the full summary here.

Gaia Ventures Limited v Abbeygate Helical (Leisure Plaza) Limited

High Court, Chancery Division, 31 January 2018

The question at the heart of the case was whether a developer (“Abbeygate”) had used “reasonable endeavours” to achieve “as soon as reasonably practicable” the satisfaction of a condition upon the fulfilment of which it became obliged to make an overage payment.

Read the full summary here.

 

Related areas

Newsletters

Sign up to our newsletter mailing list for the latest news.

Subscribe

Home