Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explore how S.62 LPA 1925 and its equivalent provisions in other jurisdictions have been interpreted as having the capacity to create new easements. It is intended to identify that the theoretical justification for this interpretation can be viewed as flawed, and that its practical implications are unsatisfactory. It intends to restate the need for reform and to challenge arguments that this interpretation is correct and justified.

This paper examines and analyses the origins of the principle that S.62 LPA 1925 can create new legal rights, consider similar provisions from other jurisdictions, examine recent attempts to justify the creative effect of the section and offer observations on proposals for reform.

It is found that the ability of S.62 LPA 1925 to create legal easements from precarious rights has been replicated in many jurisdictions, has been widely criticised as both incorrect in principle and problematic in practice and has been the subject of well-reasoned and workable proposals for reform for more than 40 years.

From both theoretical and property practitioner perspectives, this paper highlights the lack of justification for the principle that S.62 LPA can create easements from precarious rights, challenges the arguments for retaining the principle and offers practical proposals drawn from several jurisdictions as to how the section and its equivalent provisions abroad could be reformed.

Knight's Industrial Law Reports goes into a new style and format as Managerial Law This issue of KILR is restyled Managerial Law and it now appears on a continuous updating basis rather than as a monthly routine affair.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse whether title to land is secure in England and Wales when registered under the Land Registration Act (LRA) 2002, in particular when a title is registered, where there has been a mistake and how that connects with the doctrine of overreaching.

This paper analyses the reported judgments, with particular emphasis on the decision in Knight v Fernley (2021).

This paper explores the concepts of “mistake” and “overreaching” and concludes that LRA 2002 provides a complex, but complete answer to concerns about the application of these doctrines.

This paper will encourage certainty in the judicial decision-making process when “mistakes” occur in the land register. It will contribute to the resolution of difficult, and current, controversies.

To enable legal advisers to be clear in their obligations and the advice they give to clients, and to further a better understanding of title registration in England and Wales.

The LRA 2002 replaces registration of title with title by registration. The real force of this is only now being realised and there are few reported judgments, and less consistency, working out what this means in practice. There are no other comments on this critical case, even though it helps elucidate the circumstances in which the title register may be altered.

This purpose of this paper is to examine whether disciplines outside law demonstrate consensus on the attributes of home, whether, to the extent that there is consensus, property law supports those attributes, whether those attributes can be reconciled with working from home, and how far property law is able to address uncertainty regarding the regulation of working from home.

This paper identifies conceptions of “home” from non-law disciplines. It examines the extent to which property law in England and Wales supports or challenges those conceptions. It examines the extent to which working in homes disrupts or distorts those conceptions. It assesses the extent to which property law engages with that disruption.

A lack of clarity in how “home” is defined and perceived in non-law disciplines, and a tendency in those disciplines to produce static and decontextualized notions of home is reflected in inconsistent property law approaches to protection of important “home” attributes. Recognition by property law of the prevalence of home working is relatively undeveloped. An under-appreciation of “context” dominates both cross-disciplinary perceptions of home, and the support which property law provides to those perceptions.

This paper focuses on conceptions of “home” drawn from disparate disciplines and seeks to find consensus in a diverse field. It concentrates on the regulation by covenants of the use of homes for non-domestic purposes in England and Wales.

Suggested alterations to property law and practice, and to the imposition and construction of covenants against business use, might better reflect the prevalence of working from home and clarify the circumstances in which homes can properly be used for work purposes.

This paper identifies that in its inconsistent recognition of “home” attributes in general, and in the lack of established principles for regulating the use of homes for business purposes in particular, property law offers insufficient certainty to occupiers wishing either to work at home, or to resist doing so. It identifies that a broader cross-disciplinary investigation into the inter-relationship between living spaces and working spaces would be beneficial.

The originality of this paper lies in its examination from a property law perspective of established cross-disciplinary conceptions of home in the context of the recent growth of working in homes.

This study is carried out to evaluate how well legal knowledge can be demonstrated by a built environment professional via the scenario-based approach to the learning of law modules.

A Delphi analysis of the advice provided by an MSC quantity surveying student, on a scenario-based legal problem arising due to a property contract, is carried out. The tendered legal advice was submitted as part of the assessment requirements for an MSc law module, following the university criteria, after the teaching of a law module. The student report, which attained an A-grade, and the assessment criteria used for marking/grading by the university were subsequently sent to 18 practicing lawyers, who were selected to constitute an expert panel, to independently judge the extent of legal knowledge demonstrated in the student report.

The Delphi analysis outcome showed that the expert panel holds a similar consensus view to the university on the level of legal knowledge demonstrated and by extension the effectiveness of the law module in imparting legal knowledge to a non-lawyer. The study outcome shows how well legal knowledge can be acquired and applied by a non-lawyer, within the context of the built environment, via scenario-based teaching of a law module.

This study serves as a preliminary step necessary to arouse further research toward empirically profiling the current outlook of a wider range of graduating students receiving scenario-based legal education in the built environment.