The latest UK Legal Miscellany (Feb-Mar 2008) features a wide range of recent case law and information. It is available to download opposite (.pdf). The items contained within are itemised as follows:
i) Greener buildings - EPCs and implications for rent review and beyond
Owners of commercial buildings will be required to produce Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs) from April 2008, similar to those already required for domestic house sales. Display Energy Certificates (DECs) will also be required. The implications are examined, including some for the rent review context.
ii) England & Wales: Withholding notices under a construction contract
Reinwood Limited v L Brown & Sons Limited [2008] UKHL 12: House of Lords has unanimously held that, as an employer had served an effective withholding notice under the building contract, the employer had paid the sum that was properly due to the contractor. An extension of time granted after payment by the employer, but before the final date for payment, could not retrospectively alter the sum due to the contractor.
iii) Landlord & Tenant: Leasehold enfranchisement
Two items: a) Majorstake Limited v Curtis - the House of Lords has overturned an earlier Court of Appeal decision. The House of Lords ruling is a welcome relief to tenants who wish to apply for a new lease within the last five years of their lease terms b) Boss Holdings Limited v Grosvenor West End Properties and others - the House of Lords upheld a tenant's appeal by determining that a property, originally designed as a house but later used commercially, was a "house" for the purposes of the right to enfranchise.
iv) England & Wales: The Crown and adverse possession
Mark Andrew Roberts v Crown Estate Commissioners [2008] EWCA 98: the Court of Appeal has confirmed there is no constitutional principle or rule of law that prevents the Crown from pleading adverse possession where its original entry onto the land was unlawful.
v) England & Wales: Mistaken belief of occupiers and adverse possession
Ofulue & Anor v Bossert [2008] EWCA Civ 7: the Court of Appeal has ruled that the mistaken belief by occupiers of land that they were entitled to a tenancy did not mean that they lacked the intention to possess that was necessary to establish adverse possession.
vi) England & Wales: Gambling premises, licence
The High Court has confirmed that the Gambling Commission's guidance to local authorities is wrong. A person who wishes to apply for a premises licence is not precluded from doing so because the premises are either not constructed or are in the course of being constructed or altered.
vii) England & Wales: Estate agency: commission payable
The County Homesearch Company (Thames & Chilterns) Ltd v Cowham [2008] EWCA Civ 26: The Court of Appeal has held that the main rationale for implying a term that an agent has to be the effective cause of the transaction is so that the client does not have to pay commission to more than one agent.
viii) England & Wales: Exceptions and reservations of minerals
Coleman and another v Ibstock Brick Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 73: The Court of Appeal has considered the terms of an exception and reservation of minerals contained in a conveyance of land made in 1921. It upheld the High Court's decision on whether particular substances were "minerals" for the purposes of the exception and reservation. The judgment includes guidance on how to interpret similar provisions in other documents.
ix) England & Wales: access rights for rebuilding vs development
Risegold Limited v Escala Limited [2008] EWHC 21 Ch: the High Court held an easement that granted access to "rebuild" and "renew" a property could not be used to develop it. The case highlights the need for purchasers who acquire land for development to ensure they have the necessary express rights in place, and to not assume a right of access to repair and renew property is sufficient.
x) England & Wales: Courts' powers to review an expert determination
In Homepace Limited v SITA South East Limited [2008] EWCA Civ 1, the court had to decide whether an expert determination complied with the requirements of the lease under which it was made. It found the minerals certificate did not comply with the requirements under the lease. A useful summary of the questions to be considered when the courts are asked to look at an expert determination, and of the circumstances in which the courts can review an expert determination.
