Wed08232017

Last updateTue, 24 Feb 2015 5pm

Property Law Journal: October 2014
Serle Court

Andrew Francis considers the EUCJ decision in Groupement des cartes bancaires and its relevance to land agreements within Chapter I of the 1998 Act and Art 101 of the TFEU

It is over three and a half years since the removal of the exemption of land agreements from Chapters I and II of the Competition Act 1998 on 6 April 2011. Given the publicity surrounding the decision in Martin Retail Group Ltd v Crawley Borough Council [2013] (see ‘The Fire and Furnace of land covenants’, PLJ322, June 2014, p10) and the decision of Henderson J in Carewatch Care Services Ltd v Focus Caring Services Ltd [2014] (see my article ‘Restrictive covenants considered’ in PLJ324, September 2014, p24), property lawyers with an eye on competition issues returning refreshed from their summer holidays might be forgiven for thinking that all would be quiet on this front; at least for the moment.

Nicholas Cheffings, Mathew Ditchburn, Guy Fetherstonhaugh QC and Jonathan Karas QC propose a new protocol for avoiding, or resolving, alienation disputes

No, not the latest thriller by Frederick Forsyth: the Alienation Protocol (or, to give it its proper name, the Protocol for Applications for Consent to Assign or Sublet) goes beyond holiday reading.

John Starr

John Starr reviews recent case law relating to reliance on certificates provided on development completion and challenging the enforcement of an award

Dentons

Bryan Johnston outlines an important post-K/S Victoria decision concerning repeat guarantees

There has been a lot of talk about the Landlord and Tenant Covenants Act 1995 following the decisions in Good Harvest Partnership LLP v Centaur Services Ltd [2010] and K/S Victoria Street v House of Fraser Ltd [2011]. However, there have been no significant determinations in respect of the issues arising from those cases and in particular in respect of the important issue of repeat guarantees.

Serle Court

How is light measured, how are damages assessed and how is an actionable interference established? Andrew Francis answers some pertinent questions relating to rights of light

Questions and answers: part 1

Questions and answers: part 3

Questions and answers: part 4

Questions and answers: part 5

Marcus Woody assesses ‘sustainable development’ in the National Planning Policy Framework in the context of some recent cases

In the words of the fictional barrister, Horace Rumpole (of the Bailey), paraphrasing Viscount Sankey LC:

Forsters LLP

The Upper Tribunal has recently favoured a more conventional way of working out marriage value for the purposes of an enfranchisement claim. Natasha Rees examines the consequences

Hedonic regression is not the usual topic of conversation among property lawyers and surveyors but it has caused something of a stir in the world of enfranchisement. In a recent decision of the Upper Tribunal in an appeal known as Kosta v Carnwath [2014], the tenant relied on a hedonic regression model in determining one of the few remaining areas of contention between enfranchisement surveyors: relativity.