Back to e-alerts                                                                             Download PDF [PDF 351KB]

Issue 40 - February 2007

Contents

Cases

Statutory Instruments

Features

Articles

Press releases and consultations

Events

Discounts

Back to top
 

Cases

1. Legal and General Assurance Society Ltd v Expeditors International (UK) Ltd

Citation: [2007] All ER (D) 166 (Jan)
Hearing date: 24 January 2007
Court: Court of Appeal, Civil Division
Judges: Sir Anthony Clarke MR, Sedley and Lloyd LJJ
Summary: Landlord and tenant—Lease—Construction

There were two leases, in materially identical terms, (the lease) of commercial premises between the claimant as landlord and the defendant as tenant. The lease contained a break clause, cl 6.10, which provided, inter alia, that the tenant might determine the lease on 30 December 2004 by giving the landlord not less than six months' prior written notice, and that on expiry of the notice the tenant would deliver up the premises. The tenant served break notices under each lease under cl 6.10 eighteen months or so ahead of the break date. The landlord's solicitors sent a letter to the tenant enclosing schedules of dilapidations and wants of repair and reinstatement in respect of each lease. The parties entered into negotiations about the extent and value of the dilapidations.

A settlement agreement dated 21 October provided, inter alia, that in consideration of a payment of £172,000 by the tenant, the landlord 'releases the Tenant absolutely from its liabilities, covenants and obligations past and present under the Lease so far as the same relate to the state and condition of the Premises' and 'The Tenant covenants with the Landlord that it will keep the Premises in no worse a state and condition than they were in as at 24 August 2004 as evidenced by the schedule of condition'. The tenant started vacating the premises in December 2004, but had not completed the process by 30 December. The landlord sued for rent in 2005 on the basis that the leases were still subsisting, and the tenant defended by reference to the break clauses.

The tenant contended that the settlement agreement did not merely replace the obligations under the leases as regards the state and condition of the premises with a more limited obligation, together with the payment of the substantial sum of money, but it modified clause 6.10 so that the effect of the notices already served was no longer conditional on anything yet to be done by the tenant. On that basis failure to give vacant possession on 30 December 2004 would still be a breach of covenant, and remaining in possession thereafter would be a trespass giving rise to financial claims, but it would not prevent the break notices having effect to terminate the leases. The judge held that a term could be implied into the settlement agreement to the effect that the parties had agreed that the leases had come to an end as a result of the break notices served by the tenant. The landlord appealed. The appeal would be dismissed (Lloyd LJ dissenting).
 
Case annotations in other services: Legal and General Assurance Society Ltd v Expeditors International (UK) Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 7
Back to top 

2. David Wilson Estates Ltd v Mid Bedfordshire District Council

Citation: [2007] All ER (D) 173 (Jan)
Hearing date: 24 January 2007
Court: Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court)
Judge: Collins J
Relevant legislation: Town and Country Planning Act 1990, s 287
Summary: Town and country planning—Local plan—Green belt
 
The claimant owned land over which the defendant local authority had planning control. That land had been given ‘interim’ green belt status. A local planning inquiry was held by an inspector to determine whether that land was to be given ‘full’ green belt status. The inspector recommended that the claimant’s land was not to be included in the green belt. He concluded that the land need not be kept permanently open, and that it was not critical to any of the green belt purposes identified in the relevant planning guidance to justify its inclusion. Objections to that finding were invited and discussed in various meetings. Thereafter, the authority resolved to reject the inspector’s conclusions, and a local plan which included the claimant’s land within the green belt was adopted.

The authority accepted that it had not referred to the test of necessity of alteration to boundaries set out in the relevant guidance, but decided to allow the inclusion of the claimant’s land on the basis that green belt status would safeguard against encroachment upon the undeveloped countryside. The claimant applied to the High Court pursuant to s 287 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, for an order quashing the authority’s decision. The claimant contended that the authority had not considered the test of necessity contained in the relevant guidance, and accordingly had erred in its decision. The authority contended, that a consideration of that test was not required given that the purpose of the structure plan that had been in force when the inspector’s inquiry had been held was only to define green belt limits, and not to define precise boundaries, which was a matter for authorities when drawing a local plan. The application would be dismissed.

Case annotations in other services: Wilson (David) Homes Ltd v Kirklees Metropolitan Council [2000] 08 LS Gaz R 38; Copas v Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead [2002] 1 PCR 199
Back to top

3. Polarpark Enterprices Inc v Allason

Citation: [2007] All ER (D) 130 (Jan)
Hearing date: 22 January 2007
Court: Chancery Division
Judge: Briggs J
Summary: Possession—Landlord—Action for possession

The defendant and his wife had two children. He obtained legal advice regarding tax avoidance arrangements in respect of the acquisition of a property as a second home. It was decided that the property would be purchased by a trust. The claimant was identified as the vehicle for that acquisition. A deed of settlement was prepared for the constitution of the trust, which was executed in 1980, by the wife as settlor, with the Bank of Bermuda Ltd (the bank) and Bermuda Trust (Far East Ltd) acting as trustees. At all times the trustees were the only shareholders of the claimant. Clause 10(e) of the settlement conferred powers on the trustees 'to permit settlor or any discretionary object to reside in and to occupy any real property or land or building which may at any time form part of the Trust Fund for such periods or periods and on such terms as the Trustees shall in their absolute discretion think fit'.

The initial property of the settlement was identified as £120,000 assigned by the wife to the trustees. No such assignment was made, but rather the funds were transferred to the wife's bank account by the defendant. On the same day, they were transferred to her trustees, to the claimant, and ultimately to the vendors of the property as part of the completion monies. The claimant was duly registered as the proprietor. The defendant's family used the property as one of their homes, and, following his divorce in 1996, the defendant continued to reside there.

The claimant gave the defendant notice requiring him to vacate in February 2002, and subsequently brought possession proceedings in accordance with Civil Procedure Rules, SI 1998/3132, Pt 55. The defendant alleged, inter alia, that, pursuant to an agreement with the estates and mortgages manager of the bank and his wife, he enjoyed the right to occupy the property for life in consideration of his contribution towards the purchase and the discharge of maintenance and repairing obligations. Possession was ordered against the defendant. It was held that the evidence in support of that defence was incredible, and that, accordingly, it was appropriate to decide the claim under CPR 55.8(1)(a) rather than giving directions for case management, there being no realistic prospect of any of the defences succeeding at a trial.

The defendant appealed. The defendant submitted that the judge had erred in treating the evidence in support of his alleged right to occupy for life as incredible. He submitted, inter alia, that an inference adverse to the claimant ought to have been drawn from the claimant's failure to adduce evidence of witnesses to challenge the defendant's account. The appeal would be dismissed.

Case annotations in other services: Polarpark Enterprises Inc v Allason [2007] EWHC 22 (Ch)
Back to top

4. Haycocks and another v Neville and another

Citation: [2007] All ER (D) 96 (Jan)
Hearing date: 18 January 2007
Court: Court of Appeal, Civil Division
Judge: Waller, Lawrence Collins LJJ and Charles J
Summary: Boundary—Position of boundary—Evidence of boundary between adjoining properties

The claimants and defendants were registered freehold owners of adjoining properties. A dispute arose between the parties as to the location of the boundary line between their front gardens. Following unsuccessful attempts to come to an agreement, the matter came before the County Court. Both parties instructed their own expert to determine the location of the boundary. In order to make that determination, the question that fell upon the experts, was where on the ground the hinge point was located. Each expert carried out an assessment of the various plans, and having used their own respective methodologies, decided on different points. The judge at the county court preferred the basis of measurement that had been contended for by the defendants' expert, but rejected the conclusions of both experts on the basis of 'scaling' from the relevant points in the plans to the ground.

Instead, the judge directed by a method of her own devising where the hinge point was situated, and accordingly, where the boundary line was on the ground. The claimants appealed. The issue was whether the judge had erred in law, in the process of determining where the hinge point was situated. The appeal would be dismissed.

Case annotations on other services: Haycocks and another v Neville and another [2007] All ER (D) 96 (Jan)
Back to top

5. Trustees of Morden College v Mayrick

Citation: [2007] All ER (D) 30 (Jan)
Hearing date: 12 January 2007
Court: Court of Appeal, Civil Division
Judge: Chadwick, Hallett LJJ and Lindsay J
Summary: Specific performance—Summary procedure—Summary judgment for specific performance

The defendant had gone into possession of part of certain land as tenant of the claimants. The claimants had thereafter conveyed the freehold interest in that land and other land to H. H subsequently transferred the property, of which the defendant was tenant, to him (as sitting tenant with the right to buy). The claimants commenced proceedings against the defendant arising out of a dispute over the ownership of part of the land. Following mediation, the proceedings were compromised by an agreement which provided for the transfer of certain land, including land referred to as the 'accessway extension' by the claimants to the defendant, and the transfer of certain other land by the defendant to the claimants.

The claimants commenced proceedings against the defendant in the county court for, inter alia, specific performance of the compromise agreement. In his defence to the claim, the defendant asserted, inter alia, that the claimants had misrepresented their freehold interest in the land subject to the dispute and that he had been induced by their representation to enter into the agreement. The claimants were granted summary judgment under CPR 24. The defendant's appeal to the High Court was dismissed. He appealed. The defendant submitted, inter alia, that the judge had been wrong to conclude, on the evidence before him, that the defendant had not shown 12 years' adverse possession of the accessway extension by H during the period that he had been H's tenant. The appeal would be dismissed.

Case annotations in other services: Trustees of Morden College v Mayrick [2007] EWCA Civ 4
Back to top

6. M R Dean & Sons (Edgware) Ltd v First Secretary of State and others; Sainsbury Supermarkets Ltd v First Secretary of State and others

Citation: [2007] All ER (D) 16 (Jan)
Hearing date: 11 January 2007
Court: Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
Judge: Crane J
Relevant legislation: Town and Country Planning Act 1990, s 288
Summary: Town and Country Planning—Permission for development—'Ransom strip'

The claimant 'Dean' in the first matter and 'Sainsbury' in the second matter appealed against a decision by an inspector appointed by the local authority, refusing planning permission to a developer in relation to a development which comprised a retail supermarket, a substantial number of residential and holiday let units, associated car parking and landscaping, on a site that had previously been granted conservation area consent. Two listed buildings adjacent to the appeal site but not linked to it, owned by Dean, and referred to as '283' were also relevant to the inspector's decision. The claimants lodged appeals to the Secretary of State.

The Secretary of State disagreed with the inspector on one of his recommendations but granted permission on the basis of an alternative recommendation. The claimants applied to the High Court pursuant to s 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, for the Secretary of State's decision to be quashed. There were broadly two issues which arose for consideration. The first related to 283. On that issue, the question was whether the Secretary of State had acted unlawfully in depriving Dean of the value, or part of the value of 283, as those buildings were effectively a 'ransom strip'. The second issue related to the design of the listed buildings. The question was whether the Secretary of State had failed to have regard to a material consideration, namely the alternative designs of those buildings.

The court ruled: (1) The Secretary of State had been entitled to conclude, having adopted the reasoning of the inspector: first, that a likely consequence of the grant of permission would be the acquisition and demolition of 283 such that the 'ransom value' would remain a relevant consideration; and secondly, that 283 would be tolerable in those circumstances. Both conclusions were clearly planning judgments within the exclusive province of the Secretary of State. (2) The Secretary of State had misrepresented the views of the inspector about the Sainsbury alternative and his correct views about its relevance. He had effectively concluded that the benefits of one design were sufficient to outweigh his concern over any adverse effect that could be caused to the listed buildings and the conservation area. On that basis, he had fallen into error. Accordingly, the decision of the Secretary of State would be quashed. R (Scott Jones) v North Warwickshire Borough Council [2001] All ER (D) 16 applied. Dean's application would be dismissed and Sainsbury's application would be allowed.

Case annotations in other services: Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) [2007] EWHC 1 (Admin) 
Back to top

7. Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Mott MacDonald Ltd

Citation: [2007] EWHC 20 (TCC)
Hearing date: 10 January 2007
Court: Queen’s Bench Division (Technology and Construction Court)
Judge: Jackson J 
Summary: Building contract—Adjudication—Award—Jurisdiction to make award
 
The parties were involved in the construction of the national stadium at Wembley. Upon its appointment as main contractor, an agreement novated to the claimant the majority of the civil and structural engineering services that the defendant was performing. The novation agreement conferred on the claimant a right of inspection of ‘all pertinent records relating to the services’, which records the defendant was obliged to retain. The agreement also provided for dispute resolution by way of adjudication, the adjudicator’s decision being binding on the parties until the dispute was finally determined by agreement or arbitration.

The claimant was of the opinion that the word ‘records’ in the contract should have a broad meaning, and sought inspection of certain categories of document. Correspondence flowed between the parties, in which the defendant asserted that the claimant’s definition of ‘pertinent record’ was too wide. The claimant referred four disputes to adjudication, including one as to the meaning to be given to the words ‘all records pertinent to the services’ for the purposes of the novation agreement.

The adjudicator did not accept the definition advanced by the claimant, but ordered the inspection of documents by reference to his own definition of that phrase. The defendant afforded the claimant inspection of certain documents, but the claimant asserted that that inspection was inadequate. It brought proceedings to enforce the decision, seeking, inter alia, a declaration that the adjudicator’s decision was binding between the parties, and applied for summary judgment.

The defendant contended, inter alia, that the adjudicator had no jurisdiction to determine the true meaning of the phrase in question because the dispute between the parties was a narrower one, namely whether the claimant’s construction of that phrase was correct. It also argued that, in any event, no declaration ought to be granted because it was endeavouring to comply with the decision, notwithstanding that it disputed the adjudicator’s jurisdiction, the power to grant a declaration was discretionary and the court should not make declarations about issues that were academic.

The court ruled:(1) There might be cases where a judge, arbitrator or adjudicator was only permitted to accept or reject the claimant’s case, and was not permitted to reach any intermediate or different decision. However, such a method of dispute resolution was not commercially sensible in the general run of cases. On a fair reading of the correspondence between the parties, an issue in contention between the parties was the true meaning of the phrase ‘all records pertinent to the services’. It seemed unreal and artificial to read the correspondence as debating only the narrow question of whether the claimant’s construction of the phrase was correct. Accordingly, the adjudicator had had jurisdiction to reach the conclusion that he had.

Fastrack Contractors Ltd v Morrison Construction Ltd [2000] All ER (D) 11 and Edmund Nuttall Ltd v RG Carter Ltd [2002] All ER (D) 325 (Mar) considered. (2) As a matter of policy, the Technology and Construction Court should at each stage of litigation resolve every live issue that was then capable of resolution. It was a tenet of case management that the court was constantly seeking to narrow the issues between the parties. In those circumstances, as the jurisdiction issue had been fully argued, and as that issue remained live between the parties, a declaration would be granted to the effect that the adjudicator’s decision was binding on the parties.

Case annotations in other services: Fastrack Contractors Ltd v Morrison Construction Ltd [2000] All ER (D) 11; Edmund Nuttall Ltd v RG Carter Ltd [2002] All ER (D) 325 (Mar); Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Mott Macdonald Ltd [2007] All ER (D) 133 (Jan)
Please note subscribers can go to LexisNexis Butterworths for further details about all the above cases. Non-subscribers can sign up for a free trial of the online service.

Please note subscribers can go to LexisNexis Butterworths for further details about all the above cases. Non-subscribers can sign up for a free trial of the online service.

Back to top

Statutory Instruments

1. Stamp Duty Reserve Tax (UK Depository Interest in Foreign Securities) (Amendment) Regulations 2007

Number: SI 2007/12
Enabling power: Stamp Duty Reserve Tax (UK Depository Interest in Foreign Securities) Regulations 1999
Commencement: 1 February 2007
Relevant legislation: Financial Services and Markets Act 2000
Summary: The Stamp Duty Reserve Tax (UK Depository Interest in Foreign Securities) Regulations 1999 are amended as follows: (2) In regulation 2— (a) the definition of “collective investment scheme” and (b) paragraph (c) of the definition of “foreign securities” are revoked.
 
Back to top

2. Town and Country Planning (Regional Spatial Strategies) (Examinations in Public) (Remuneration and Allowances) (England) (Revocation) Regulations 2006

Number: SI 2006/3320
Enabling power: Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, ss 11(2)(h), 122(3)
Commencement: 21 January 2007
Relevant legislation: Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, ss 11(2)(h), 122(3)
Summary: Revokes SI 2004/2209 which provided for the remuneration and allowances for persons appointed to carry out an examination in public of a draft regional spatial strategy. Remuneration and allowances for appointed persons will now be payable on a contractual basis.
Please note subscribers can go to LexisNexis Butterworths for further details about all the above SI. Non-subscribers can sign up for a free trial of the online service.

Back to top 

Features

1. Joint property causes considerable IHT problems when one owner dies

Shared property in the form of joint tenancy and tenancy in common sometimes cause problems for personal representatives on death. Jon Golding of Golding Taxation Services says "… not only this but HMRC also have their own particular rules for IHT”.
 
Where property was owned by a deceased individual and another person on a beneficial joint tenancy, that property passes to the joint tenant by survivorship. It does not, therefore, devolve on the deceased personal representative(s) and does not form part of the value of the deceased’s estate under a grant of representation. This can mean that if the deceased’s estate comprises solely of joint property held by a beneficial tenant(s) a grant will not normally be required. In the case of tenancy in common where the property is held by the deceased, a grant of representation is usually required to administer the deceased’s share in the property. It may not be apparent initially whether a property is owned outright or as a joint tenancy or as a tenancy in common. This must be one of the first points to clarify, as not only may there be problems if this is not ascertained but an incorrect IHT return could incur penalties and interest. Whilst a grant may not be needed in cases of joint property, as mentioned above, this will certainly not be the case as far as HMRC Inheritance Tax (formerly HMRC Capital Taxes) is concerned.

Mr Golding says: “HMRC recently stated in their IHT Newsletter (December 2006) that whether property is owned as tenants in common or as joint tenants a completed form D4 as part of IHT 200 must be submitted. The Revenue isn’t happy about unilateral decisions being made on joint property and it being unreported.” Usually the property will be held in the joint names of the persons but sometimes property may be held in someone else's name as a trustee or nominee for the persons who share the beneficial entitlement to the property. In cases where the joint property is passing on by survivorship to a husband, wife or civil partner, there is not going to be an IHT liability at that stage. A person’s beneficial entitlement to joint property forms part of their estate for the purposes of IHT charge both on transfers on death and in respect of lifetime transfers.

For instance, transfer of money into joint accounts does not automatically involve any immediate gift of a beneficial interest by the provider of the money to the other account holder(s). However, any withdrawals made from the joint account by any of the account holders over and above their contribution may be lifetime transfers which HMRC will wish to know about. So if the deceased provided the whole of the money, the whole of the account at death should be included in the IHT 200. HMRC will wish to inquire about any withdrawals made at the deceased's expense by the other joint owner(s) as these are likely to be lifetime transfers going back seven years and potentially chargeable to IHT. HMRC look particularly critically at joint accounts opened shortly before death. HMRC should establish the facts and any relevant documents, e.g. application forms, withdrawal mandates, passbooks, terms and conditions of account etc before considering the legal and equitable rules. Mr Golding says: “HMRC see joint property as a potential tax loss and are focusing on this area.”

(15/1/07)
Legal News Analysis
For a free trial and discount offers contact assoc.legalupdater@lexisnexis.co.uk 
Back to top

2. Poor consumer advice record prompts FSA to shake up mortgage brokers

When the main regulator, the Financial Services Authority reviewed 252 mortgage advice firms towards the end of last year through mystery shopping, visits and questionnaires, it found “scope for improvement…in all aspects of the advice process”. It ended up referring some of the firms (which it did not publicly name) to its own enforcement team – a move which means there could be fines and public sanctions in the pipeline. About 160 of the firms failed to meet appropriate standards in parts or all of their business.

Adam Samuel has been working in this sector for many years and is not surprised. “The FSA hasn't produced the underlying research which makes it impossible to test,” he says. “But the report is fairly typical in one sense. Big organisations produce processes and don't follow them. Small firms do not have processes. The FSA, though, keeps focusing on processes not the quality of advice and then gets upset when the standard is fairly awful.”

He does not think that the lack of proper regulatory systems in the firms means that there will be another mis-selling scandal – like the personal pension transfers of the late 1980s and early 1990s, for example. But he does think that some consumers will be making claims along the lines that they were wrongly persuaded to take out loans. “It's happened already, notably in the US but also here,” he says. “Traditionally, lenders have dodged this by arguing that they did not offer advice.”

A new issue could be the ‘affordability check’ which many lenders now use to assess how much they can safely lend individuals. Instead of saying – as they did in the past – that they would lend three or three-and-a-half times gross income, many are more likely to go through detailed questionnaires to try to establish what is affordable based on net income. The templates that the lenders use in these circumstances are not “regulation-proof”, he says. “In fact, the biggest complaint about them is that they are much too rigid in practice, which incites brokers into fibbing.”

Although smaller firms are criticised in general by the FSA for not having enough systems in place, Mr Samuel goes some way to defend them. He disputes the notion that smaller firms have worse records of dealing with consumers. “For investment advice, statistics from the Financial Ombudsman Service suggest the opposite,” he says. “There are proportionately fewer complaints about them and a lower rate of upholds.” This project is one of a series from the FSA looking at the mortgage industry. Work into mortgage exit administration fees and mortgages in retirement is due later on in the year and follows the publication of its interest-only and sub-prime mortgage work at the end of 2006.

(12/1/06)
Legal News Analysis
For a free trial and discount offers contact assoc.legalupdater@lexisnexis.co.uk
Back to top

Articles

1. Double trouble

Journal: Tax Journal
Citation: Issue 868, 21
Issue date: 15 January 2007
Author: Malcolm Gunn
Summary: Malcolm Gunn, consultant with Squire Sanders & Dempsey, discusses the valuation of jointly held properties.

Subscriptions
Back to top

2. Ripe for reform

Journal: New Law Journal
Citation: 157 NLJ 54
Issue date: 12 January 2007
Author: Stuart Bridge
Summary: The Law Commission wants to abolish the law of forfeiture for breach of covenant. Stuart Bridge explains the new statutory scheme on termination of tenancies and the proposed methods of termination—courts or notice-based.

Subscriptions
Back to top

3. Distress for rent

Journal: Property Service
Citation: (2006) 4 EMIS Professional Publishing Property Service 10, 5
Issue date: 11 January 2007
Author: Leon Swerling
Summary: Property Service: Examines the draft Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill which, if enacted, will abolish the current law on distress for rent and replace it with the Commercial Rent Arrears Recovery (“CRAR”) regime. Explains the existing law on distress for rent and explains the Draft Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill in detail.
 
Back to top

4. SDLT anti-avoidance

Journal: Tax Journal
Citation: Issue 867, 15
Issue date: 8 January 2007
Author: Patrick Cannon
Summary: Looks in detail at the two new SDLT anti-avoidance rules introduced in the Pre-Budget Report on 6 December 2006.

Subscriptions

Please note subscribers can go to LexisNexis Butterworths for further details about all the above articles. Non-subscribers can sign up for a free trial of the online service.

Back to top

Discount offers

Law Society Publishing

Please note that from 1 March 2007 Law Society Publishing will move from Marston Book Services Ltd to a new distributor, Prolog. To place orders from 1 March 2007, please contact: The Law Society, PO Box 99, Sudbury Suffolk CO10 2SN (telephone 0870 850 1422, fax 01787 313 995 or email lawsociety@prolog.uk.com). If you have an account with Marston Book Services Ltd, orders may still be placed with Prolog using your existing account details. You will be issued with a new account number when you place your first order through Prolog (it will be visible on your invoice documentation).

Section members receive a 20 per cent discount of all related Law Society publishing titles (excluding directories). Please quote “Property Section” when requesting a 20 per cent discount when ordering.

1. Home Information Packs: A Guide to the New Law

Publisher: Law Society publishing (20 per cent off for Section members)
Summary: This book is designed for solicitors and property professionals who need to understand the legal issues and practical implications so that they can prepare their practices and remain competitive in a changing marketplace. It provides an authoritative commentary to Part 5 of the Housing Act 2004 and subsidiary regulations and gives an informed and clear analysis of the content of HIPs, collation and accuracy of information for the packs, enforcement and sanctions, possible solutions for breaches and proposals for a "dry run" and transitional provisions. Order a copy from Marston Book Services (telephone 01235 465 656)
Back to top

2. Conveyancing Handbook: 13th edition

Publisher: Law Society Publishing (20 per cent off for Section members)
Summary: The law and practice of conveyancing is undergoing significant change such as the introduction of Home Information Packs and e-conveyancing. This handbook provides busy practitioners with the resources to understand the impact of new developments and to tackle everyday questions. This established and highly regarded book continues to be the most reliable, accurate and up-to-date source of information and guidance on all aspects of conveyancing practice. Order a copy from Marston Book Services (telephone 01235 465 656).
Back to top

Save 15 per cent on selected LexisNexis Butterworths publications

To order any of the following titles and claim your discount quote: “Law Society Section discount offer”, contact LexisNexis Butterworths customer services (telephone 020 8662 2000 or email customer.services@lexisnexis.co.uk). A full list of publications is available at www.lexisnexis.co.uk.

1. Hutton & McKie on Stamp Duty Land Tax 2006-07: 3rd edition

Publisher: CCH
Summary: This new edition enables the practitioner to identify areas of opportunity for the client, providing practical guidance on best practice in compliance and tax planning. Now forming part of a brand-new tax annuals series, the guide is also available as a subscription service in CD-ROM and online formats. In this way you can choose the format that best suits your working style and office environment.

Order and receive a 10 per cent discount 
Back to top

2. Ross: Commercial Leases

Summary: Widely acknowledged as the market leading text in the commercial property field, it provides the complete commercial lease service, it includes the relevant cases, materials, precedents and guidance for whatever type of commercial lease you may face.

Details about no-obligation trial: LexisNexis Butterworths or 020 8662 2000 
Back to top

3. Butterworths Property Law Handbook: 6th edition

Price: £70 (15 per cent discount for Section members)
ISBN: 1405702079
Published: December 2005
Summary: Provides an invaluable collection of statutory materials for property law practitioners in a single compact volume. The book is written for solicitors and barristers who specialise in commercial property, landlord and tenant law, or residential conveyancing. It is also an ideal text for local councils, housing associations, property developers and surveyors.

Details 
Back to top

4. Butterworths Residential Landlord and Tenant Handbook: 3rd edition

Price: £55 (15 per cent discount for Section members)
ISBN: 0406969507
Published: May 2005
Summary: Incorporates major legislative developments which have occurred since 1998, most importantly the enactment of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 and the considerable volume of subordinate legislation. An invaluable source of reference for those practitioners, in both the public and private sectors, who deal with such issues as leasehold enfranchisement, the right to buy (and the new right to acquire for tenants of registered social landlords), assured, secure and protected tenancies, disrepair and all other areas of residential landlord and tenant law.

Details
Back to top

5. Butterworths Business Landland and Tenant Handbook: 3rd edition

Price: £62 (15 per cent discount for Section members)
ISBN: 0406978808
Published: December 2004
Summary: Incorporates significant amendments to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 Part II by the Regulatory Reform (Business Tenancies) (England and Wales) Order 2003 as well as including the full text of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, Part 2 (Notices) Regulations 2004. Compact and easy to use, it is an important reference tool for all practitioners advising on business and agricultural tenancies and will also be of use to surveyors and estate managers.

Details 
Back to top

6. Hill and Redman's Law of Landlord and Tenant

Price: £468 (15 per cent discount for Section members)
ISBN: 0406998167
Published: January 1988
Summary: Widely acknowledged to be the definitive practitioner work on landlord and tenant law, the book covers everything in this wide area, from general common law rules to business tenancies and from private and public sector housing to agricultural tenancies. It comprises three loose-leaf volumes, tables and index binder, with three updating issues per year.

Details 
Back to top

7. Butterworths Property Law Service

Price: £264 (15 per cent discount for Section members)
ISBN: 0406996512
Published: January 1996
Summary: Provides a comprehensive source of reference on conveyancing with step-by-step guidance on each stage of a conveyancing transaction, stating the relevant law and supplying practical advice, the text of the relevant materials and documents, and all the necessary precedents. The publication comprises a single loose-leaf volume. A bi-monthly bulletin provides information on the latest cases, discussion on any recent legislation and provides valuable notes on practice.

Details 
Back to top

8. Claims to the Possession of Land

Price: £196 (15 per cent discount for Section members)
ISBN: 0754506789
Published: October 2000
Summary: Sets out and explains the law and procedure of each type of possession claim. With nearly 300 comprehensive forms and precedents, which are readily adaptable for a whole range of cases, it provides a complete and thorough exposition of this complex subject. This loose-leaf service includes full coverage of the relevant Civil Procedure Rules.

Details
Back to top 

New books and special offers from RICS Books

RICS Books is the publishing and bookselling arm of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. For further information or to place an order, click on the links provided or contact RICS Books’ customer services on telephone 0870 333 1600 or email mailorder@rics.org, stating membership of the Law Society Property Section to secure any discount.

1. Case in Point - Expert Witness

Price: £27.50
Authors: Ellis Baker and Anthony Lavers
Code: 8842
Summary: Even a detailed code like the Civil Procedure Rules cannot provide all the answers. Further answers can be found in case law. This handy book will raise your awareness of the cases governing the work of expert witnesses. It will ensure that you are up-to-date with the latest case law and are properly informed of the legal position when acting as an expert witness for your clients. This practical case-based guide will help property and construction surveyors act as expert witnesses in any form of dispute. Also included is the Civil Justice Council Protocol for the Instruction of Experts to give Evidence in the Civil Courts.

Details  
Back to top 

2. Case in Point - Planning Control

Price: £27.50
Author: Richard E Smith
Code: 9391
Summary: A major tool in assessing planning proceedings can be found in a collection of case law. If you are a property professional involved in any planning work this handy casebook has the answers to many of your queries. Providing clear summaries of the core planning control cases, both recent and established, Case in Point - Planning Control is written with the busy surveyor in mind. The book seeks to draw out the implications of planning cases on surveyors' day-to-day practice.  Written for both residential and commercial cases. It will provide you with relevant, easy-to-understand and authoritative information.

Details  
Back to top 

3. Capital Allowances 2006-2007

Price: £72.95
Author: Ray Chidell
Code: 11550
Summary: In the competitive tax advisory market you have to gain an edge over your rivals. Capital Allowances 2006/07 aims to help you in maximising the tax relief available to your clients and will therefore highlight the value of your service.

Details 
Back to top   

4. A Practical Approach to Housing Law

Price: £40
Authors: Graham Robson and David Roberts
Code: 10019
Summary: This new title provides a unique combination of the law and practice of housing law. It provides a detailed yet accessible analysis of the most important areas of housing law that practitioners currently encounter. The context of each topic is considered, as well as the lawyer's role, case strategies, legal funding and client care issues. Useful source and precedent materials are included.

Details 
Back to top 

This e-alert is not intended to provide comprehensive or exhaustive records of information concerning the property and conveyancing sector. If you have any feedback or suggestions, please email propertysection@lawsociety.org.uk. This e-alert was created in conjunction with LexisNexis UK Legal Updater Service. If you would like more details on any of the articles, please contact sabina.smith@lexisnexis.co.uk. The views expressed by the Legal Analysis interviewees are not necessarily those of the proprietor.