header-logo header-logo

14 April 2017 / Andrew Francis
Issue: 7742 / Categories: Features , Property
printer mail-detail

An uncertain world

Andrew Francis offers some best practice guidance when advising developers on applications under s 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925

  • For developers there can be no escape from uncertainty in the context of s 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

  • There are four important points to bear in mind when advising developers on s 84 applications.

The one thing developers of land desire most is certainty. Apart from the certainty conferred by the ownership of title (at least where there is no risk of rectification of the register) the presence of full planning consent, completed s 106 agreements and community infrastructure levy payments, agreed funding, the ability to secure all services and access to the site and the absence of adverse third party rights are all matters which any developer wants “sewn up” before any work starts on the ground. Until resolved, the greatest cause of uncertainty will usually be third party rights. Outside disputed boundaries and claims to adverse possession, the worst offenders are prescriptive easements (especially light) and restrictive

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll