News and Articles

Hooper v Oates [20 February 2013] considered the significant issue of whether a damages claim for breach of contract to buy property was to be measured by reference to the property’s value at the date of the breach, or rather by reference to its value at a later date. There was a large difference in the respective values, which had a major impact on the level of damages.

On 27 February 2013 the Law Commission published its report on reform of the Electronic Communications Code and in so doing recommended a complete re-draft. The report does not include a draft Bill but the Government is said to be committed to the implementation of a revised Code (which will not be retrospective) in light of the report.

Where a Lease provided for the landlord to insure the building but omitted any express obligation on the tenant to contribute to the cost, a term would not be implied to make the tenant liable to contribute and, in the absence of any sweeping up provision, none of the service charge provisions could be construed to cover this cost.

The Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 does not apply to options or conditional Agreements for Lease.

Registered titles can be altered to restore title to the victims of fraudulent transfers.

This is an interesting case relating to a covenant over adjoining land entered into on a sale of the adjoining land. The covenant required the adjoining owner (i.e. the purchaser) to obtain the consent of the vendor or any assigns for any development on the adjoining land and for any application for permission to develop the land.

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

The Ministry of Justice published its response to the consultation, Transforming Bailiff Action, on 25 January 2013.

The High Court has dealt with a test case re valuers’ liability for residential mortgage valuations prepared in good market conditions In 2006/7, GMAC was the largest centralised mortgage lender in the UK and E.Surv was, and is, the largest residential surveyor. GMAC claim that E.Surv negligently and in breach of contract overvalued many properties they lent against and they have suffered substantial losses as a result. They have assigned all such claims to Webb Resolution..

Parties cannot expect the Court to release them from bad bargains.