Last updateTue, 24 Feb 2015 5pm

Property Law Journal: February 2015

Sukhninder Panesar examines a case where one of the beneficiaries to a common intention constructive trust of land had been involved in an illegal purpose

It is a well-established principle of property law that where a resulting trust of land arises, for example, where one person contributes to the purchase price of land but does not take the legal title to the land, that person nevertheless acquires a beneficial interest in it by virtue of a resulting trust. It is also now trite law that, where the resulting trust arises by operation of law, the mere fact that the party in whose favour the resulting trust arises has been involved in some illegal purpose does not mean that the law will automatically refuse to recognise the existence of that trust. In other words, evidence of illegality on the part of a claimant does not automatically deny a finding of a resulting trust which has arisen, irrespective of the illegal purpose in question (Tinsley v Milligan [1994]).

Serle Court

Andrew Francis reviews the Law Commission’s report and draft bill on rights to light, published at the end of last year

Questions and answers: part 1

Questions and answers: part 2

Questions and answers: part 3

Questions and answers: part 4

The last rights of light Q&A (part 4), published in PLJ327, ended with the promise that this article would examine in detail the particular factors present when deciding what is the proper remedy in rights of light disputes. That promise was overtaken by the Law Commission’s publication on 4 December 2014 of its report and draft bill, ‘Rights to Light’, Law Com No 356.

Anna Cartledge focuses on the use of neighbourhood plans as well as their potential significance

The concept of neighbourhood planning was introduced through the Localism Act 2011, giving communities the power to make:

Alexandra Foxon and Gary Lawrenson summarise their highlights of 2014 focusing on commercial landlord and tenant cases

As we begin the new year, it is a good time to reflect on decisions that grabbed the headlines in the real estate world in 2014.

John Starr

Should a window for ADR be built into a dispute referred to the TCC? John Starr analyses the findings of a recent case

In ‘An unreasonable refusal’ PLJ326, November 2014, p6, I wrote about the recent case of Northrop Grumman Mission Systems Europe Ltd v BAE Systems (Al Diriyah C41) Ltd [2014], where the Technology and Construction Court (TCC), despite finding that BAE had unreasonably refused an offer by Northrop to mediate, made no costs sanction against it. This seemed to me to fly in the face of the wealth of case law in the Court of Appeal on this point, all of which has seemed to support the use of costs sanctions to encourage mediation, even to the point where it has almost become compulsory to mediate disputes before bringing them before the Court of Appeal for trial. I posed the question of whether this case might find its way before the Court of Appeal in due course.

Simon Adamyk considers the gaps left in the legislation for the listing of land or buildings as assets of community value and suggests ways of addressing them

The Localism Act 2011 introduced a new jurisdiction to list land or a building as an asset of community value (an ACV) if, in broad terms, its use benefits the local community. ACVs can include such things as pubs, shops, village halls, libraries or football stadia. Local authorities are charged with administering this new regime and keeping a public register of ACVs. Unfortunately, the legislation contains a number of gaps and raises a number of questions.

What counts in law as an effective signature? Malcolm Dowden investigates in light of recent case law

Apart from temper tantrums and fine food, King John, Henry VIII and Gordon Ramsay also have in common a place in the law relating to signatures.