The answer to the question whether the erection of an extension to an existing residential property will be in breach of a covenant not to build residential property on a piece of land or to cause a nuisance where the existing residential property was erected before the covenant was imposed will depend on the true construction of the actual words used in the restrictive covenants and the manner in which the proposed work is to be carried out. Dealing first with the covenant against causing a nuisance; there is no suggestion that additional words such as ‘annoyance’ or ‘injury’ or ‘detriment’ are used in conjunction with ‘nuisance’. Nuisance is a narrower word than annoyance or detriment. The question has arisen in the authorities whether such a covenant restricts anything more than would be actionable

A charity can only hold the title to land or property in its own name if it’s a charitable incorporated organisation or charitable company. In the Land Registry Guidance Practical Guidance 14: Charities, it is explained that: ‘"Trust corporation" means the Public Trustee (who is not allowed to accept trusts for charitable purposes), a corporation appointed by the court in any particular case to be a trustee and a corporation entitled by rules made under section 4(3) of the Public Trustee Act 1906 to act as custodian trustee (section 205(1)(xxix) of the Law of Property Act 1925; section 17(1)(xxx) of the Settled Land Act 1925. See also section 3 of the Law of Property (Amendment) Act 1926). The corporations so entitled are listed in rule 30 of the Public Trustee Rules 1912 (SR & O 1912/348 (as amended)).’ The

A statutory declaration is a formal statement complying with the formalities prescribed by the Statutory Declarations Act 1835 which affirms the truth of a matter to the best of the knowledge and belief of the declarer. An independent commissioner for oaths is required to attest to the signature of the declaration. Statutory declarations are used as formal evidence in numerous situations. Commonly they are used to demonstrate a certain factual circumstance, such as the use to which a property has been put by a previous owner, so that an

The Access to Neighbouring Land Act 1992 (ANLA 1992) provides for the making of a court order allowing access, but only in very limited circumstances. The applicant must show that: • the proposed works are reasonably necessary for the preservation of the whole or any part of their land, and • it is either impossible or substantially more difficult to carry out those works without access to the neighbouring land The court must not make an access order if it is satisfied that it would: • interfere with or disturb the enjoyment of the neighbouring land by the occupier, or • cause that person hardship to such a

The Pension Protection Fund (PPF) is a statutory body whose main function is to pay the pension benefits of members of eligible pension schemes (up to a certain level) where a ‘qualifying insolvency event’ (eg administration) has occurred in relation to their employer. When a pension scheme enters the PPF, the Board of the PPF must give

For the purposes of this Q&A, it is assumed there is no definition within the transfer or any related document and there is no support/assistance derived from the transfer, which would provide a clear definition of ‘storey’ or any assistance as to its meaning. The exact wording of the covenant would be the first starting point alongside any definitions contained within the transfer. Furthermore, whether a storey is seen to be only above ground will need to be considered in view of the transfer and the subject matter of the transfer, the document needing to be read as a whole document. Legal definition In the absence of a common definition of ‘storey’, a definition relating to basements of House(s) in Multiple

There is absolutely no reason why, as a matter of principle, a right to a supply of water through pipes running from a highway through properties in several different titles cannot be claimed by prescription. Section 2 of the Prescription Act 1832 (PA 1832) specifically refers to rights to water. Webb v Bird [1861] 10 CB (n.s.) 268 (not reported by LexisNexis®) suggested, incorrectly, that the section in fact only applied to rights of way and water. Claiming a right to the supply of water in this case by prescription will involve demonstrating use of the supply over a prolonged period without force, without secrecy and without permission. The three methods of demonstrating prescription are (a) at common law; (b) under

Where two parties hold a property as beneficial joint tenants, they are each entitled to the whole of the property. If one dies, their share is extinguished, and the other party retains ownership of the whole by way of survivorship. On a sale of the property, the parties are entitled to share equally in the sale proceeds, although this may potentially be subject to arguments in relation to equitable accounting. Such arguments should rarely apply, however, where the parties were beneficial joint

Where property is purchased in the joint names of two or more co-owners, a statutory ‘trust of land’ arises. Where property is held on a trust of land, the legal estate and equitable estate are separate. The co-owner trustees must hold the legal estate as joint tenants. A legal joint tenancy cannot be severed and when one joint tenant dies his legal interest in the property automatically passes to the surviving joint tenant(s). However, co-owners can hold the beneficial interest in the property on trust for themselves (and any additional co-owners) as: • joint tenants, or • tenants in common Tenants in common are also each entitled to the whole property, however, each tenant has an interest in a notional

‘Sold as seen’ is not a term specifically defined in law, but usually denotes that the property is sold in the condition in which it is in at the time of the sale—ie no warranties or guarantees are given regarding its condition or defects. When applied in respect of chattels, it will usually mean that no guarantees are given regarding those chattels. When a bank repossesses a property, it will usually inform the occupier of the need to remove their personal

The rule in Saunders v Vautier The rule in Saunders v Vautier is that all beneficiaries of a trust who are of full age (now 18) and who have capacity are entitled to terminate the trust and require the trustees to distribute the assets according to the terms of the trust. There are two factors to note about the case: • it involved only one beneficiary but was extended to trusts with multiple beneficiaries • the rule applies even if there is a contrary provision in the Will/trust instrument.

This Q&A assumes that the mortgage is a legal mortgage; and that the mortgagee has taken no steps to enforce the possession order or to enforce a power of sale. The remedies available to a mortgagee (ie the lender) in the event of default by the mortgagor (ie the borrower) include the right to enforce possession against the mortgagor, and to sell the property. While usually exercised in conjunction, they remain distinct remedies. In theory, a mortgagee can sell a mortgaged property without first obtaining possession of it. However, most purchasers will insist on vacant possession, and so any mortgagee selling without first having obtained vacant possession would risk breaching the contract