Contractual disputes

Where disputes arise regarding the terms of property agreements (for example claims for breach of contract, misrepresentation or misstatement and mistake), property disputes practitioners may be asked to advise on potential remedies. There are a number of remedies available in respect of contractual property disputes, depending on the nature of the dispute including:

Remedy

When does the remedy arise and what is it?

Termination for breach/repudiation of a contract (sometimes also referred to as rescission for breach or discharge by breach)

Termination for breach is available where one party accepts the other’s repudiatory breach, treating the contract as at an end. This remedy is sometimes also referred to as rescission for breach, but should not be confused with rescission in the context of misrepresentation (rescission ab initio), which gives rise to a different remedy (see below). Unlike rescission ab initio, termination for breach does not unravel the contract from the beginning, ie it does not affect rights and obligations which have already been performed. Where there is a repudiatory breach, the party who is not in breach can elect to continue the contract, claiming damages for the breach, or to

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Property Disputes News

Property Disputes weekly highlights—28 November 2024

This week's edition of Property Disputes weekly highlights includes: a Court of Appeal decision on adverse possession and first registration, High Court decisions on the balance that must be struck between the rights to freedom of speech and assembly versus the prevention of trespass on private property, and beneficial ownership of a long leasehold restaurant property, and an Upper Tribunal decision on whether the First-tier Tribunal correctly decided to imply a legal obligations compliance term into a headlease. It also includes the approval of the 175th and 176th Practice Direction Updates to the Civil Procedure Rules, the publication of the minutes of the meeting of the King’s Bench Masters’ Court Users’ Group, the Civil Justice Council’s second phase report on the Pre-Action Protocols, the launch of the UK Supreme Court’s new digital platform and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s announcement of leasehold reforms for 2025, and publication of its impact assessment on the Renters’ Rights Bill.

Family feud clarifies estoppel argument in adverse possession (Malik v Malik)

Property Disputes analysis: This case came before the Court of Appeal on 4 November 2024 after a long running history which involved two brothers, Iftikhar Malik and Vaqar Malik. The dispute between the brothers related to the ownership of a valuable two-bedroom property at 7 South Lodge, 245 Knightsbridge, London. It was concluded in the lower courts that the flat was purchased solely by Iftikhar as the legal and beneficial owner and there was no appeal against that finding. The Court of Appeal was asked to determine whether Vaqar could establish an interest in the flat under the doctrine of adverse possession. Iftikhar successfully defended the claim for adverse possession by way of estoppel by conduct based on Vaqar’s assertions made at a hearing in 2012 which Iftikhar claimed estopped Vaqar from bringing a claim for adverse possession at a later date. The case helps to show that legal practitioners must be careful to ensure that no misleading representations are made in proceedings which could later give rise to an estoppel argument if the other party has relied upon those representations to their detriment. Written by Sejal Johar, senior associate and Roxanne Watson, associate at Browne Jacobson LLP.

Real property; registration; adverse possession; boundaries; title plans (Clapham v Narga)

Property Disputes analysis: The Court of Appeal allowed a second appeal in a long-running boundary dispute over the bank of a stream in Leicestershire. The three separate judgments affirm that, in a boundary dispute, an HM Land Registry title plan is ordinarily irrelevant to the location of a boundary. The effect of the ‘general boundaries’ rule is that the line of a boundary falls to be located by looking underneath the title plan. The Court of Appeal also held that section 75 of the Land Registration Act 1925 (LRA 1925) operates only where the limitation period expired after first registration. Written by Tom Morris, barrister at Landmark Chambers.

Minutes of the King’s Bench Masters’ Court Users’ Group Meeting published

The minutes of the meeting of the King’s Bench Masters’ Court Users Group, which took place on 21 November 2024, have been published. A number of practical procedural points were discussed. Notably, Form 92A is now mandatory for Writs of Possession applications transferred from County Court to High Court for enforcement. The discussion also covered the increasing use of costs budgeting in high-value clinical negligence claims involving children or protected parties, emphasising that such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis.The court warned of potential costs consequences for uncooperative parties in the costs management process. Additionally, updates were provided on current processing times for various court procedures, indicating improvements in efficiency across Central Office operations. The user questions have been anonymised in the published minutes. Please note that the original version of the minutes contained details of the users who submitted questions, but those names have been removed from the version attached below.

View Property Disputes by content type :

News