In Southwell v Blackburn, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against a successful proprietary estoppel claim, where a cohabitee was awarded £28,500 representing a slice of equity in the property where the couple had lived.
The Court of Appeal has criticised a party which sought permission to adduce a supplementary skeleton argument in circumstances in which its original skeleton was “prolix” and longer than the Practice Directions permitted.
The High Court has held that it is possible to acquire a prescriptive easement to hang a gate over a driveway (by occupying the airspace), although on the facts the dominant landowner had not shown 20 years of continuous use of appropriate quality. (Bradley and another v Heslin and another  EWHC 3267 (Ch).)
The High Court has considered the conduct of a mortgagee in possession as involuntary bailee of another’s goods, and held that, following Da Rocha-Afodu and another v Mortgage Express Ltd and another  EWCA Civ 454, the duty of an involuntary bailee is to do what is right and reasonable. What is right and reasonable will depend upon the particular facts of a case.
The High Court has held that a third party, who was given the means of representing themselves as the beneficial owner of the property by the occupying beneficial owner, could create a charge that would take priority to the beneficial owner’s occupation.
The Supreme Court has held that the insurer of a solicitor, whose negligence led to mirror wills being ineffective, should pay the costs of both parties to the action to have the wills rectified.
The Court of Appeal has held that an assignment clause in a lease that required, as a condition of the landlord’s consent, a guarantee from the outgoing tenant’s guarantor, should be interpreted as a simple qualified covenant against assignment.
The Commercial Court has allowed an application to set aside an order under CPR 23.11(2) (power to re-list an application made where the defendant fails to attend a hearing) but ordered the defendants to pay a sum into court under CPR 3.1(5) in light of their non-compliance with court orders.
HHJ Keyser QC in the Cardiff District Registry of the TCC has held that the architect was not in breach of his duty of care to his clients and was not professionally negligent. The claimants also failed to establish that they had suffered any loss as a result of the alleged breach.
A bank has been held liable for costs after it discontinued possession proceedings in respect of a mortgagor’s properties. Costs were awarded on the standard basis in accordance with CPR 38.6 and CPR 44.9. The court rejected the mortgagor’s application for the costs to be paid on the indemnity basis on the grounds that the proceedings had been an abuse of process.