It is common for restrictions to be placed upon the use of land. Often however, there will be a power on the part of a party to the conveyance to control further the restriction, a common example being as here where there is a power to require any changes to property to be approved. A distinction must be drawn between an absolute restriction (such as ‘no buildings permitted’) and one which is subject to a power (such as ‘no buildings permitted unless built in accordance with plans approved by the vendor’). The courts have drawn this distinction when determining whether terms can be implied into restrictive covenants. It is important first to consider a few points. First, the identity of the person entitled to give consent must

Adverse possession of unregistered land is governed by the provisions of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980). We have been unable to find any authority directly on the point but the following extract from Meaning and effect of 'adverse possession':

This Q&A considers whether a parent (‘the holidaying parent’) may take a child out of the jurisdiction of England and Wales if the other parent refuses to give their consent. Where a child arrangements order is in place in respect of a child, no person may remove that child from the jurisdiction of the UK save in certain circumstances, pursuant to section 13(1) of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989). A ‘child’ for the purposes of ChA 1989 is a person under the age of 18 (ChA 1989, s 105(1)) and so will cover a child of 16. If there is a child arrangements order in place, pursuant to ChA 1989,

Parental responsibility means all of the rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authority which by law a parent of a child has in relation to the child and his property (section 3(1) of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989). The child’s mother has parental responsibility for the child. The child’s father shall, if the parents were married or civil partners at the time of birth, also have parental responsibility from birth (ChA 1989, s 2(1)). Where the parties are not married or civil partners at the time of birth, the father will acquire parental responsibility if he becomes registered as the child’s father (including on the child’s birth certificate),

While most separated parents will be able to turn to the Child Maintenance Service (CMS) for a calculation, and for enforcement, in respect of child maintenance, this is generally not the case if the non-resident parent is habitually resident outside the UK. Pursuant to section 44 of the Child Support Act 1991 (CSA 1991), the Secretary of State has jurisdiction to make a maintenance calculation with respect to a person who is a non-resident parent only if that person is habitually resident in the UK, unless the non-resident parent falls into one of the narrow categories of persons detailed in CSA 1991, s 44(2A). If the CMS does not have jurisdiction, an application for child maintenance may be made to the court either under Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989),

There is no prohibition on an application for a financial order being made after the decree absolute (or final divorce order) has been pronounced where the applicant has not remarried, although regard should be given to the potential impact of any delay in making the application. See Wyatt v Vince, where the wife applied for financial remedies 19 years after the parties were divorced and while the wife’s application ‘faced formidable difficulties, not least of which was the inordinate delay in issuing it’, the Supreme Court declined to strike out the application. If no financial order was made on divorce,

Under Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) an order may be made for the payment of a lump sum to be made for the purpose of enabling any liabilities or expenses (ChA 1989, Sch 1, para 5(1)). In addition, the court may also make an order in relation to property, including an order for the transfer or settlement of property to either the applicant for the benefit of the child or to the child themselves. The words ‘for the benefit of the child’ have a wide meaning and should not necessarily be interpreted as giving a child a beneficial interest in the property transferred and the court will not generally order an outright settlement of property on, or transfer to, a child (Lilford v Glynn). See also Practice Note:

Pre-nuptial agreements, while persuasive, are not binding on the court and the current position is as set out in Radmacher (formerly Granatino) v Granatino. While not binding, the court will often place a significant amount of weight on a pre-nuptial agreement. The court will consider a number of factors when deciding whether to uphold a pre-nuptial agreement, including whether both parties took legal advice, but will often respect the decision made by the parties at least to some extent when considering financial settlement. See Practice Notes: Implications of pre-nuptial agreements within proceedings for financial provision and Marital and civil partnership agreements—independent legal advice. A declaration of trust is a deed drawn up between two people detailing their percentage beneficial ownership

Buffer agreements under CPR 3.8 CPR 3.8(3) and (4) allow parties to extend, by prior written agreement, the time for doing an act that is required by a rule, practice direction or court order where there is a specified consequence for a failure to comply. The maximum period of the extension is 28 days. For example, parties would be able to agree to extend the time for serving witness statements, the consequence for failing to do so being that the witness may not be called to give oral evidence without the court’s permission. The important caveat in CPR 3.8(4) is that the extension must not put at risk any hearing date. Extensions

A detailed consideration of the Married Women's Property Act 1882 (MWPA 1882) is outside the scope of Lexis®PSL Family, as such applications are rare. An application may be made under MWPA 1882, s 17 by those who were engaged to be married, provided that no more than three years has elapsed since the engagement was broken off. Under MWPA 1882, s 17 the court has the power to resolve any dispute over the title to or possession of property, but it cannot adjust interests in property. Property can include personal property, and the net proceeds of sale of property, or any other property bought with the net proceeds. An application under MWPA 1882, s 17 is family proceedings and the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955 apply. FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955,

As part of the disclosure process in financial proceedings, it will often be necessary to obtain expert evidence regarding the valuation of assets. However, such evidence should not be obtained automatically, and although an expert may be instructed by a party to financial proceedings without the permission of the court, the court's permission must be obtained before expert evidence may put before the court (in any form). The provisions regarding expert evidence in financial proceedings are contained in the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, Pt 25 and the accompanying practice directions

Where a counter-notice is given by a landlord under section 45(2)(a) of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (LRHUDA 1993) admitting that the tenant has a right to extend their lease, a negotiation period is automatically