Property Newsletter: May 2022

• Published date: 09 June 2022
• Subject Matter: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Real Estate and Construction, Trials & Appeals & Compensation, Real Estate
• Law Firm: Gatehouse Chambers
• Author: Gatehouse Chambers

Introduction

Welcome to the May edition of the Property Newsletter from Gatehouse Chambers.

Congratulations to our Patrick Sarson on his well-earned and well-deserved appointment as Senior Practice Manager to the Property, Private Client and Professional Negligence Teams. Patrick has been with Gatehouse since 2014, is recommended by the Legal 500 and in 2021 won the Chambers Professional of the Year at the Advocate Bar Pro Bono Awards.

This month Priya Gopal looks at the Privy Council decision in Nature Resorts Ltd v First Citizens Bank [2022] UKPC 10 in which undue influence in the context of a mortgage over commercial property was considered and where the Privy Council offered practical guidance applicable to all cases for relevant factors to consider and weigh up if undue influence is being asserted.

Brie Stevens-Hoare QC and Amanda Eilledge consider the impact of co-owner forgery following the decision in Victus Estates and others v Munroe and others [2021] EWHC 2411 (Ch).

Jamal Demachkie also spins the wheel of questions for us.

The next newsletter will be in June.

Carl Brewin - Editor

Activity report - a selection of what some of us have been up to this month

John de Waal QC has finished a month-long trial for the BMA and is preparing for another long trial in June concerning a dispute between property developers in South Kensington.

Brie Stevens-Hoare QC has been juggling boundary disputes, restrictive covenants, an interesting rectification claim and a couple of wonderfully complicated old-fashioned adverse possession and accretion claims over this last month.

Daniel Gatty's month has involved everything from forfeiture of a commercial lease to disputed rights of way via private cemeteries (the case about a cemetery in which Daniel succeeded in the High Court last year is making its way towards a hearing in the Court of Appeal) and solicitors' (alleged) negligence. A veritable smorgasbord of property-themed disputes.

James Hall has been advising, again, in the ultra-niche area of Inclosure Awards, requiring trawling through private Acts of Parliament (not easy to get hold of) from 1801 all the way through to the early twentieth century. Did you know that if you breach any provision of the St Mary's Nottingham (Nottinghamshire) Inclosure Act 1845 (8 & 9 Vict.) for which no other particular penalty is provided then a magistrate may still fine you '5 (!) for doing so? So says section CLIX of the Act. Yes, all the section numbers are in Roman...