header-logo header-logo

29 October 2009 / James Naylor
Issue: 7391 / Categories: Features , Property
printer mail-detail

Future proof

While seeing into the future is not yet expected of property lawyers, advising as to future risk is, says James Naylor

In Stoll, Darren Atkins, Brambleridge Management Limited v Wacks Caller (a firm) [2009] EWHC 2299 (Ch) Cs instructed D, a now defunct firm of Manchester solicitors, to purchase development property, for the sum of £400,000.

The purchase contract was conditional upon Cs obtaining planning permission for the conversion of the property into two flats, with a further dwelling at the rear.

Completion was due to take place on the 21st day following the date of planning permission; save that if the planning application was refused, or if the sale and purchase was not completed within six months of exchange, the sale agreement was to lapse.

Contracts were exchanged following the grant of planning permission by Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (the council) on 30 July 2003, and completion took place on 19 August 2003.

However, the proposed development never proceeded because, post-completion, on 9 September 2003, out-of-the-blue, Cs new neighbours applied for judicial review of

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll