header-logo header-logo

Land registration

22 April 2016
Issue: 7695 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Van der Merwe v Goldman and another [2016] EWHC 790 (Ch), [2016] All ER (D) 67 (Apr)

The Chancery Division held that the claimant and the first defendant, who was his wife, were entitled to an order setting aside a transfer and a settlement and transfer of property on the grounds of mistake, where they had believed that the steps they had taken would not result in an immediate charge to tax nor a ten-year anniversary charge. The equitable rules applied to the situation. In the circumstances, it was appropriate to set aside all of the relevant transactions.

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

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
Peter Kandler’s honorary KC marks long-overdue recognition of a man who helped prise open a closed legal world. In NLJ this week, Roger Smith, columnist and former director of JUSTICE, traces how Kandler founded the UK’s first law centre in 1970, challenging a profession that was largely seen as 'fixers for the rich and apologists for criminals'
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll