Whether or not joint proprietors are joint tenants in equity or tenants in common they hold the legal estate as joint tenants so that on the death of one the other takes the legal estate by survivorship. The surviving joint tenant ‘the survivor’ then holds the property on trust for those beneficially entitled, prima facie, the survivor and the deceased joint tenant’s estate. On the death of the survivor, the legal estate will vest in the survivor’s personal representatives. We are told

Introduction The protections that must be put in place vis-à-vis the sale of land in the scenario described depend upon whether or not the parcel of land that is being sold is being sold by the company holding a registered or unregistered charge. Given the reference in the question to the property being sold under a possession order, it has been assumed when answering the question that the company has an interest in the land by way of charge that has enabled it to take possession. Assuming, for the moment, that the land out of which there is to a transfer of part is registered,

Stamp duty land tax (SDLT) applies to chargeable land transactions. A land transaction is an acquisition of a chargeable interest. Where the demise of a lease is extended, a surrender and re-grant of the lease occurs by operation of law. This means that there is an acquisition of a chargeable interest by both the landlord and the tenant (see sections 42 and 43 of the Finance Act 2003 (FA 2003)). When a new lease is granted in

The interest of the parents under the trust can take effect only in equity. Assuming that: • the property being purchased is registered land • the legal ownership is to be taken in the name of the son or daughter alone • a charge by way of legal mortgage over the legal estate in the property is to be granted to the mortgage lender, and • the charge and the deed of trust are both to be executed at the time of purchase of the property it

This Q&A focuses on tenancies which began prior to 15 January 1989 and relate to a non-resident landlord. It is assumed that the purchase relates to the freehold and that there are no intervening tenancies. We have limited this Q&A to cover protected tenancies but not protected shorthold tenancies, and it does not consider the scenario of whether the tenants would have the right of first refusal of any relevant disposal under section 1 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (LTA 1987). The buyer of the property will be bound by the tenancies in the same way as his predecessors in title were, including the original landlord of the protected tenancy. In practice, it is questionable whether the tenants would surrender their protected

When contracts for the sale and purchase of property are exchanged, the beneficial interest in the property passes to the buyer with effect from exchange of contracts, provided that the contract is specifically enforceable. While the legal title will remain with the seller until completion, the seller will hold the legal estate on trust for the buyer. Further, between exchange and completion the seller will retain a right to remain in possession under its common law lien as seller, which arises at the date of the contract (that is, the date of exchange) (see: Phillips v Silvester and Re Birmingham). During this period, generally, the powers of ownership, such as the power of the seller to let or change tenants (other than to the buyer), are suspended

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.