header-logo header-logo

17 July 2008 / Tamsin Cox
Issue: 7330 / Categories: Features , Property
printer mail-detail

Property law update

UNREASONABLE CAR PARKING SCHEME
UNEQUIVOCAL RENT DEMAND
PRESCRIPTIVE RIGHTS TO LIGHT

PARKING SCHEME
Shah & Ors v Colvia Management Co Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 195, [2008] All ER (D) 256 (Mar) concerned a management company’s proposed alterations to a parking scheme in use by lessees of units in an industrial park. The management company (Colvia) had been established to manage an estate comprising some 87 industrial units held on 999 year leases, each lessee having shares in the company, and had subsequently acquired the freehold also, so that the estate was controlled by its occupants.

Two issues arose in relation to the parking provision at the estate: lack of space, and the imposition of non-domestic rates by the local authority. The space issue arose because the various parking areas provided room for only 350 to 370 vehicles. Additional pressure for parking was caused by the Claimants, who were six lessees who ran car repair companies from the estate.Taking into account cars awaiting inspection and repair as well as courtesy vehicles, these six lessees required around

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
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
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?
In this week’s NLJ, Fred Philpott, Gough Square Chambers, invites us to imagine there was no statutory limitation. What would that world be like?
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
back-to-top-scroll