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: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll