Contractual estoppel and non-reliance clauses

First Tower Trustees Ltd v CDS (Superstores International) Ltd: Contractual estoppel and non-reliance clauses were not immune from scrutiny under the Misrepresentation Act 1967 s.3. Such clauses could not prevent liability arising if they failed to satisfy the reasonableness test under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 s.11(1). Accordingly, a landlord was not permitted to rely on a clause in a lease restricting its liability for representations, where it had misrepresented to the tenant that it had no knowledge of environmental problems affecting the property, when in fact it was aware of asbestos problems. Click here for more information.

 

Villarosa v Ryan

Villarosa v Ryan: A notice given by personal representatives of the tenant to a registered leasehold flat, pursuant to the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 s.42, was not invalidated by s.42(4A) of that Act even though the notice was given more than two years after the date of the grant of probate. The executors were qualifying tenants who had owned the lease for more than two years and did not need to rely on the special provision in s.39(3A), which conferred an individual right to enfranchisement on the personal representatives of a deceased tenant. Click here for more information.

The no-Act Rights Assumption

Whitehall Court London Ltd v Crown Estate Commissioners (CA): on whether the “no-Act rights” assumption, whereby rights conferred by the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 were disregarded when valuing the premium payable to purchase an extended lease, applied to an individual flat, or the entire building, for the purposes of calculating the apportionment of the premium between the head landlord and the freeholder. Click here for more information.

Court Closures

MPs including Helen Hayes, MP for Dulwich and West Norwood, have asked ministers not to make further court closures, following consultation in February 2018 on the closure of eight courts.

Secretary of State for Justice David Gauke told the House of Commons on 6 March 2018 that courts were only closed when the Government is satisfied that access to justice is maintained, but Ms Hayes contended that this was not the case in her constituency, where closures had seen constituents diverted to another court, described by lawyers as a “chaotic environment”.

Joint Venture for the Purchase of Land

Generator Developments Ltd v Lidl UK GmbH / Judgment Date: 08 March 2018: The Court of Appeal summarised the law applicable to equitable claims based on Pallant v Morgan [1953] Ch. 43, [1952] C.L.Y. 3571. A property development company, which had been negotiating a joint venture with a supermarket for the purchase of land, did not have an interest in the land under Pallant v Morgan principles when the supermarket had purchased it before the joint venture was finalised.

Warning for Property Investors

Giambrone & Law has failed in its challenge to a ruling that it was under a duty to warn property investors of the risks of investing in a part of Italy associated with organised crime. The Court of Appeal upheld Justice Foskett’s decision in July 2017 and the Supreme Court has now refused to hear a second appeal, saying “the application does not raise an arguable point of law”. Various Claimants v Giambrone and Law (A Firm) [2017] EWCA Civ 1193; [2018] P.N.L.R. 2 (CA (Civ Div)).