Speak to our friendly staff directly  +44 (0)20 7242 2523

A leading set specialising in commercial, construction, insurance and property law

This document is from our archive and no action should be taken in reliance on it without specific legal advice.

Property case law update: July 2011

UBS Global Asset Management v Crown Estates Commissioners – 9.6.11 – unreported ChD
Freehold – Escheat – Previous grant of an Option – Application for a vesting order.
Held: The mere grant of an option did not create a beneficial interest or a trust. The grantee was not entitled to a vesting order under the LPA 1925 or the Trustee Act 1925.

NYK Logistics (UK) Ltd v Ibrend Estates BV – 16.6.11 - [2011] EWCA Civ 683 - CoA
Break clause – Meaning of vacant possession.
Held: Tenant’s workmen returned to premises one week after break date to do repairs. Vacant possession means at the time it is required “the property is empty of people and chattels and the purchaser is able to assume and enjoy immediate and exclusive possession, occupation and control of it”.

Bashir v Ali & Khan – 25.5.11 - [2011] EWCA Civ 707 – CoA
Auction – Sale of freehold subject to leases – Unknown studio flat – Proper construction of the contract
Held: (1) The fact the wording of the contract may lead to a good bargain for one party does not equate to a Chartbrook “arbitrary or irrational” result; (2) An oversight or omission in description does not of itself equate to a clear mistake on the face of the instrument; and (3) When construing a contract and considering the principles in Chartbrook it is necessary to have regard to the context and the fact, the contract was an acceptance by one party of an offer made at auction by the other rather than a bi-lateral negotiation, was a part of that context.

Arqiva Limited v Everything Everywhere Limited – 27.5.11 - [2011] EWHC 1411 (TCC) – Ramsey J
Telecommunications – Landowner’s agreements – Telecoms joint ventures – Trespass – Injunctions or damages –Interlocutory issues pending an expedited trial.
Held: (1) Where a particular telecommunications company did not have a licence but operated from a mast its operation amounted to trespass, (2) Where a licence existed operation in breach of the terms of the licence would not ordinarily amount to a trespass, (3) Breaches of the licences relate to use and occupation and therefore affect property rights, (4) Although the assessment of damages may be difficult it was important to note the fact that the underlying commercial purpose was payment for use and occupation and dispute concerns the terms and payment for the use and occupation that occurred.

Case summaries prepared by Brie Stevens-Hoare