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.
Property PSL