For subscribers, the January 2017 issue of the CPI Update appears attached below, and deals with the following cases:
- Competing priorities during a registration “gap” - Baker v Craggs;
- Satisfying deposit conditions under an option to purchase - Helix 3D Ltd v Dunedin Industrial Property Nominee Ltd;
- Is a seller’s solicitor liable for erroneous CPSE replies? Francis v Charles Knapper;
- A new rent review case on index linking - Elmfield Road Ltd v Trillium (Prime) Property GP Ltd;
- What qualifies as “term of years”? Leeds City Council v Broadley (Rev 1);
- Applying equitable relief rules to licences - General Motors UK Ltd v The Manchester Ship Canal Co. Ltd;
- Can an oral land contract be enforced by a constructive trust? Matchmove Ltd v Dowding & Church;
- Contracts disposing of land interest - Rollerteam Ltd v Riley.
In addition, there is coverage of:
- The Boundaries (Resolution of Disputes) Bill 2016;
- The way in which CPSE replies are qualified.
Published on 5 January 2017.