header-logo header-logo

18 January 2013 / John Summers
Issue: 7544 / Categories: Features , Property
printer mail-detail

Taking sides

hires_6_3

John Summers considers two recent important property law decisions

This update scrutinises Yeates v Line [2012] EWHC 3085 (Ch)—a decision of the High Court which considers whether certain statutory formalities apply to agreements concluded in settlement of boundary disputes—and Pankhania v Chandegra [2012] EWCA Civ 1438, a Court of Appeal decision which considers the effect of an express declaration of trust on a subsequent claim to a different beneficial share in the subject property.

Yeates v Line

In early 2011, the appellants (AS) made an application to the Land Registry to have the registered title to certain land (the land) altered to show them as proprietors. AS alleged that they had acquired title to the land by adverse possession. The registered owners of the land were the respondents (RS) who objected to the application. The dispute was referred to the adjudicator to the Land Registry. Although she found that AS had been in adverse possession as alleged, she declined to order alteration of the register on the basis that the parties had reached

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

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers drives further growth in its UK immigration team with new partner Sophie Barrett-Brown

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal invests in next generation of legal talent as specialist litigation practice grows

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips continues momentum in London with arrival of Catrina Smith

NEWS
Restrictions on workplace non-disclosure agreements could make settlements slower, more complex and more expensive when reforms expected in 2027 take effect
Private prosecutors face closer scrutiny under Crown Prosecution Service guidance designed to strengthen accountability and consistency when intervention is requested
Foreign states cannot necessarily claim immunity for cyber operations launched abroad against computers in Britain, following a divided Supreme Court ruling
Defendants who make unsupported complaints about their lawyers risk losing legal aid while confiscation proceedings continue without representation
Lawyers advising Russian clients face different sanctions restrictions across the UK, EU and US, despite their shared objective of increasing pressure on Russia
back-to-top-scroll