header-logo header-logo

26 April 2024
Issue: 8068 / Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice , Property , Contract
printer mail-detail

NLJ this week: Lessons on document construction from a freehold dispute

169188

Mind the boilerplate small print for danger may lie within, warns Andrew Francis, Serle Court, in this week’s NLJ

Francis looks at Mackenzie v Cheung and another [2024] EWCA Civ 13, a Court of Appeal decision this year concerning the conveyance of the freehold title that became No 444 Selsdon Road, Croydon. He sets out the lessons to be learned.

The case provides ‘an example of the application of three important principles when we are advising upon the meaning and effect of legal documents’. Francis sets out the three principles and explains each in turn.

As for those boilerplate terms, he writes: ‘Traps are often hidden in them. Their presence is frequently camouflaged by their location at the end of long sets of terms or at the end of lengthy documents. So far as we do see them, we treat them (dangerously) with a lawyer’s insouciance.’ 

RELATED ARTICLES

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll