Contractual termination of leases: lessons from the Commonwealth: Pt. 1

This, the first part of a three-part article on contractual termination of leases, considers the extent to which determination of a lease in accordance with the contract law principles of frustration and acceptance of a repudiatory breach has been accepted by Commonwealth courts. Reviews the approaches adopted by the courts in Canada, the US and Australia to the application of contractual principles to landlord and tenant disputes.

Options to renew leases: time for legislative relief?

Argues that England should follow the example of Australia and New Zealand and give the courts statutory power to grant a tenant relief against forfeiture of the right to exercise an option to renew a lease by reason of the tenant being in breach of covenant. Suggests the legislative provision introducing this power should adopt wording mirroring that in the Law of Property Act 1925 s.146(2).

Property in body parts and products of the human body

An intriguing question, which until recently had not been directly explored by the courts, is the extent to which English law recognises body parts and products of the human body as property capable of ownership. Although the common law currently recognises no general property in a dead body (and only limited possessory rights in respect of it), this apparent “no-property rule” provides no justification, it is submitted, for denying proprietary status to parts or products of a living human body. The recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Yearworth v. North Bristol NHS Trust ([2009] EWCA Civ 37) lends strong support to the view that genetic material (as the product of a living human body) is capable of ownership, at least in the context of a claim in the tort of negligence and bailment. This article examines the various issues by reference to both English and Commonwealth authority.

Contractual termination of leases: lessons from the Commonwealth: Pt. 2

This, the second part of a three-part article on contractual termination of leases, considers the extent to which English courts have allowed the contract law principles of frustration and acceptance of a repudiatory breach to be applied to leaseholds. Distinguishes cases involving a repudiatory breach by a landlord from those where the tenant is the one in breach.

Constructive thinking

Discusses the House of Lords ruling in Cobbe v Yeoman's Row Management Ltd on whether the doctrine of constructive trust, as an alternative to proprietary estoppel, could be invoked by a property developer under the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 s.2(5) where an agreement for the acquisition of an interest in land failed to comply with s.2(1), but where the developer had incurred expenditure obtaining planning permission to develop the property. Reflects on whether there are circumstances in which the courts will find a constructive trust in order to avoid the effects of s.2(1).

Resulting trusts, joint borrowers and beneficial share

Reviews case law illustrating the courts' approach to beneficial ownership of property purchased in joint name by means of a joint mortgage but without any declaration of beneficial interest, the resulting trust and joint beneficial interest presumptions. Contrast the approach adopted in cases where one party made no contribution to the mortgage payments with those where both parties made a contribution. Highlights the courts' treatment of the right to buy discount afforded tenant purchasers and property purchased as a commercial venture rather than a home.

Return of deposits

Explores case law illustrating the circumstances in which the courts are likely to order the return of a deposit in the event of a buyer's default. Notes the unwillingness of the courts to apply the rule on penalties to deposits and discusses the court's discretion under the Law of Property Act 1925 s.49(2) to order repayment. Focuses on the Chancery Division ruling in Aribisala v St James Homes (Grosvenor Dock) Ltd giving guidance on the circumstances in which the discretion under s.49(2) should be exercised.

Urgent review

Explains the rights of mortgagees to take possession of and sell property where mortgagors fall into arrears, considering the application of the provisions of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 allowing courts to adjourn or stay proceedings to allow borrowers to meet their obligations under the mortgage. Highlights the Chancery Division ruling in Horsham Properties Group Ltd v Clark, in which the property was sold without vacant possession and an action taken for possession of the property from the mortgagors as trespassers, which meant that the 1970 Act did not apply. Notes the concerns of the Council of Mortgage Lenders which may lead to a review of the law. [from Legal Journals Index]

Estoppel and the interests of the prospective beneficiary

Reviews case law concerning proprietary and testamentary estoppel. Examines two cases in which an elderly person made certain comments and encouraged an understanding between themselves and the claimants, that on death properties would be left to them, but where the requisite legal formalities were not undertaken. Illustrates the contrasting courts' approach, once estoppel has been established, in finding the appropriate remedy to satisfy and considers the challenges faced by the courts in differentiating between constructive trust and proprietary estoppel. [From Legal Journals Index]

No more nonsense

Discusses the approach of the courts to the quantification of beneficial interests in the family home in the event of a relationship breakdown. Assesses the clarification provided by the Court of Appeal ruling in Fowler v Barron on whether the respondent was the sole beneficial owner of a property purchased with his former partner, by means of a significant cash contribution from him and a mortgage in both their names, focusing on whether he could rebut the presumption that they held the property as joint tenants in equity where it was registered in joint names. [From Legal Journals Index]

Back to the bad old days?

Reviews the Court of Appeal decision in James v Thomas that a cohabitee had not acquired an equitable interest in a property registered in her former partner's sole name through a constructive trust, based on express or inferred common intention, or by proprietary estoppel. Highlights the inconsistent approach of the courts to cohabitee disputes. Outlines the Law Commission's proposals in its 2007 report, Cohabitation: The Financial Consequences of Relationship Breakdown, notes the factors to be taken into account by the courts, and speculates on the case's outcome if the proposals were applied. [From Legal Journals Index]

Cohabitation: quantifying an equitable share

Discusses the House of Lords judgment in Stack v Dowden on the factors the courts may consider when determining whether to rebut the presumption that former cohabitees, who were registered as joint legal owners of a property, were also joint beneficial owners with equal shares in the property. [From the Legal Journals Index]

A connection too far

Examines the test for vicarious liability for intentional torts laid down by the House of Lords in Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd requiring a close connection between an employee's tort and his employment. Reviews subsequent case law, highlighting inconsistencies in the courts' approach as to whether a close connection existed. Asks whether the cases suggest that the courts are applying a separate test based on the fairness of holding the employer liable. [From Legal Journals Index]