See Precedent: Clause—agreement conditional on satisfactory results of local land charges search already submitted: Encyclopaedia of Forms and Precedents [1151]. Note that if a condition is so vague or indefinite that the intention of the parties’ cannot be ascertained with reasonable certainty, the condition is void for uncertainty, as was the case in Lee-Parker v Izzet (No 2),

It is assumed that A did not go into occupation of the relevant land or, if they did, their occupation was not disclosed and/or would not have been obvious on a reasonably careful inspection of the land by C. A transfer of a registered estate is effected by the appropriate form, which includes Form TR1 or, where the transfer is of part of a title, Form TP1 Land Registration Rules 2003, SI 2003/1417, r 58). The effect of the execution of Form TR1 or Form TP1 is to transfer the registered estate or relevant part thereof. The lodging of Form TR1 or Form TP1 at the Land Registry together with Form AP1 (application to alter the register)

No privity of contract The current owner of the motor car was not in a contract with the repairers, who carried out the work for the previous owner. As there is no privity of contract between the repairers and the current owner, a claim in contract relying on an implied term that the work would be carried out with reasonable care and skill (such as under section 13 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982) will most likely fail. The current owner’s claim against the garage will therefore be limited to an action in negligence. Liability in negligence In order to establish negligence, the claimant will need to prove that the garage owed him a duty

The best way to approach this issue is to consider what information the court would need in order to be satisfied that: • the care order can and should be discharged, and • that a special guardianship order can be made in its stead Regarding whether the care order can and should be discharged, this will be reliant upon the extent to which the issue that existed four years ago remains extant. Naturally, if the threshold criteria in section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989 is no longer satisfied, the care order can fall away, see Practice Notes:

Family analysis: According to Sarah Kilvington, a barrister at 18 St John Street Chambers in Manchester, Re J (A Minor) should be compulsory reading for local authorities who are very often most alert to other forms of abuse such as physical injury, sexual abuse or neglect, but can on occasion struggle with properly identifying emotional abuse.

Private Client analysis: The High Court dismissed all probate claims against the estate of Mary Stevens as well as the claimants' proprietary estoppel claim for title to the majority of the estate. The court held that there is a high bar to prove unconscionability in a proprietary estoppel case and claimants should not take on the burden of proof lightly. The decision of James v James was followed, in that there is a distinction between unequivocal assurances that cannot be reneged without causing unconscionability, to statements of a testator's present intention. The court also re-affirmed the principle in Horsford v Horsford–that if the claimant is in partnership with the promisor, this is likely to be detrimental to a claim for proprietary estoppel, because, in an arms' length partnership agreement, they have effectively contracted out of the equitable remedies. The Court also emphasised that undue influence is an extremely serious allegation to make, particularly against a solicitor with nothing to gain from the alleged coercion and should not be relied upon as a fallback argument. Written by Adam Corbin, partner, Jake Rostron, senior associate, and Henrietta Knott, associate, at Michelmores LLP.

If the caveator does not have a contrary interest to the person warning, but wishes to show cause against the sealing of a grant to that person, they should issue a summons for directions, as set out in the Non-Contentious Probate Rules 1987 (NCPR 1987), SI 1987/2024, r 44(6): ‘A caveator who has no interest contrary to that of the person warning, but who wishes to show cause against the sealing of a grant to that person, may within [14] days of service of the warning upon him (inclusive of the day of such service), or at any time thereafter if no affidavit [or witness statement] has been filed under paragraph (12) below, issue and serve a summons for directions.’ Under NCPR 1987, SI 1987/2024, r 44(9),

A ‘party wall’ is defined by the Party Wall etc Act 1996 (PWA 1996). See Practice Note: Party Wall works—notices, disputes and awards and commentary: Statutory definition of 'party wall' etc: Halsbury's

A certificate of lawfulness only certifies that which is considered to be lawful: ‘If any person wishes to ascertain whether—(a) any existing use of buildings or other land is lawful;…he may make an application for the purpose to the local planning authority specifying the land and describing the use…’ (Section 191(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990)). ‘If, on an application under this section, the local planning authority are provided with information satisfying them of the lawfulness at the time of

This Practice Note provides practical guidance on what constitutes a change in circumstance for the purpose of an interim review or changed circumstance review of anti-dumping duties. Introduction One of the reviews that an investigating authority may conduct during the duration of anti-dumping duties is an interim review or changed circumstances review. The purpose of an interim review is to cater for cases where there is no longer a need to have the anti-dumping duties imposed or where the anti-dumping duties must be increased. This caters for, in the first instance, situations where there either is no dumping or there is no more injury or, in the second instance, situations where dumping and injury have increased. For guidance on interim reviews of anti-dumping duties, see Practice Note: Interim reviews in anti-dumping investigations. This Practice Note considers what constitutes a change is circumstance for purposes of an interim review. What change in circumstance is required The change in circumstance is important as it is the legal basis for the interim review. Not only is it required

This Q&A assumes that the land in question is registered at HM Land Registry and that the chargeholder referred to is a legal chargeholder ie holds a charge over the legal estate in the property and that their charge is registered in the charges register of the property at the Land Registry. The charge may be a first legal charge or a subsequent legal charge. Between themselves, legal charges rank in priority in the order of registration which governs priority in relation to the right of payment. It is usual for a legal charge to provide that the costs of enforcement can be added to the secured sum and recovered from the proceeds of sale with the sum secured. For more information, see Practice Notes: Priority between

There does not appear to be any evidence that an employee of the chargee cannot witness the chargor’s signature. Practice Note: Property deeds—use and execution of deeds in property transactions, provides guidance on who may witness the signature of a deed by an individual: ‘There are certain requirements in relation to the witness. A party to a deed cannot also