header-logo header-logo

18 April 2025 / Fern Schofield , Gwyneth Everson
Issue: 8113 / Categories: Features , Property , Landlord&tenant , Housing
printer mail-detail

Property case law: quarterly review (April 2025)

216133
In the first part of a new series for NLJ, Fern Schofield & Gwyneth Everson set out the facts & the significance of the most noteworthy property cases from the past few months
  • In the Supreme Court, judgments brought much-needed clarity on the doctrine of merger and on adverse possession.
  • The Court of Appeal clarified the scope of s 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978, and the High Court ruled on rights of first refusal, complex factual and legal background, and the limits of human rights arguments in property disputes.
  • The Privy Council ruled on the repudiation of lease, and the Hong Kong Court of Appeal distinguished between two types of trustees for limitation purposes.

Staying up to date with the latest legal developments is both a growing challenge and a critical responsibility for property lawyers. The first quarter of 2025 has brought a number of significant judgments that are essential to understand. In this article, we review landmark property cases from December

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