Property Disputes analysis: The claimant, a professional plasterer, brought a personal injury claim for over £200,000 under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 (OLA 1957) against the joint owners of a property. The property, at the time of the accident, was being renovated by a construction company owned by the father of one joint owner. The claimant was acting in person at the time of trial. Ownership was not sufficient to invite liability under OLA 1957. The quality of the duty owed to those entering by reason of their profession or calling was analysed by the judge. Written by Lauren Godfrey, barrister at Hardwicke.

The Crown is prima facie the owner of all land covered by the seas adjoining the coast, and of the foreshore. This can be bolstered by registration as the owner of the foreshore. There is no public highway along the foreshore, and no general right for the public to access or use the foreshore for recreation (see Alfred F Beckett Ltd v Lyons). See commentary: Extent of the right of passage: Halsbury's Laws of England. Accordingly, the landowner of an island adjacent to the land or territorial waters of England will need to acquire a different proprietary right, in the form of an easement, right of way, or title to the part of land through adverse possession. See commentary: Ownership of the foreshore: Halsbury's Laws of England. Easements Easements and rights of way may be acquired over the foreshore in exactly the same way as they may

The question of who owns the float on a construction project can be a difficult (and contentious) issue that often crops up in disputes relating to a contractor’s entitlement to an extension of time. This Practice Note considers what float is, which party owns it and the approach to float under the Society of Construction Law Delay and Disruption Protocol (SCL Protocol), and the position in relation to float under the JCT, NEC, FIDIC and CIOB standard form contracts. What is the float? Float is the total extra time, beyond what the contractor actually needs, which it will typically add to the end of its construction programme. Another way of putting it is that it is the time between when the contractor thinks it will actually finish work and when it is contractually required to finish. The Society of Construction Law Delay and Disruption Protocol (SCL Protocol) describes float as the 'time available for an activity in addition to its planned duration' (p 64). It is common practice for a contractor to factor some

Law firm matter/case files typically contain a range of documentation and information, which can be held electronically and/or printed in a physical file. Very broadly speaking the file belongs to the client, subject to a limited number of documents which belong to the firm and which do not have to be provided to the client. There may also be papers and documents which belong to another client (eg the lender in a conveyancing matter) or even a third party. This Q&A looks at the question of ownership of a matter file and sets out examples of documents and papers (hard copy and electronic) which may belong to different parties. It assumes there is no contractual arrangement between your firm and the client covering the ownership of the file and/or specific documents. This Q&A does not cover data subject access requests under the data protection regime. These are a very specific right and must be dealt with in a prescribed manner, regardless of who owns the matter file. This Q&A is intended to be helpful

Commentary: Rights in flowing water at common law: Halsbury's Laws of England [110] states: ‘Although certain rights as regards flowing water are incident to the ownership of riparian property, the water itself, whether flowing in a known and defined channel or percolating through the soil, is not, at common law, the subject of property or capable of being granted to anybody. Flowing water is only of public right in the sense that it is public or common to all who have a right of access to it.’ Water which has been appropriated or taken into possession from a known and defined channel is the subject of property, the right of property existing only during such possession, as is also percolating water which has been appropriated, even by artificial means such as pumping. (See Commentary: Appropriated water: Halsbury's Laws of England [113]). Water which does not

Main concept It is often clear who owns an invention, but disputes as to ownership most commonly arise in situations where employees make inventions, or where two or more people or organisations collaborate to make an invention. In the UK, the Patents Act 1977 (PA 1977) makes moderately detailed provision for how to determine who owns an invention. Check the register of patents Disputes might arise about invention ownership before or after a patent exists. If there is a patent, the register of patents in any country will state who is the registered owner of the patent in question. In the UK, GB patents can be searched on the UK Intellectual Property Office website. For European patents and those in many other countries, the epoline or espacenet databases can be searched online. The registered owner should be the correct owner, but this is not always the case, either because of a mistake or a misconception about ownership. Is there a contract? If there is doubt about who owns a particular invention, look at any contracts

As set out in the Practice Note: Expert reports, the expert's instructing party must pay the expert's fees in answering questions put under CPR 35.6, although this will not affect any subsequent decision of the court as to who should pay the fees: see CPR PD 35, para 6.2. This is, we assume, to ensure the expert is not left ‘out-of-pocket’

Dispute Resolution analysis: Discussing the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Southern Gas Networks plc v Thames Water Utilities, Jessica Elliott, barrister at 1 Crown Office Row Chambers, says the important point for those advising suppliers is that common law remedies can survive the elaborate statutory code that regulates undertaker activity.

This question may have particular significance where a valuable asset (such as a house) passes by survivorship to a surviving joint tenant and the residuary estate is not particularly valuable. Assuming none of the transfers of value on death are exempt or relieved, it will be important to establish who bears the inheritance tax (IHT) in respect of the jointly owned property (joint property forming part of the deceased’s estate for the purposes of calculating IHT payable). This Q&A focuses on the burden and liability of IHT on a transfer of value on death. Burden of IHT versus liability for IHT It is important to bear in mind the distinction between the burden of IHT and the liability for IHT. The burden (sometimes referred to as the incidence of IHT) concerns who ultimately bears the burden of the tax. This may or may not be the same person who has a liability to pay the IHT due. If a person is liable for IHT, they must account to HMRC for

A potentially exempt transfer (PET) is a transfer of an asset during lifetime. A gift made in this way will fall outside of the Estate of the deceased so long as it was made more than seven years from the date of death. Taper relief is available if the donor dies between three and seven years from making the gift. See Practice Note: Calculating the inheritance tax (IHT) charge on death. A transfer that is intended to be a PET fails where the donor does not survive more than seven years. The value of the PET is added back to the Estate and may incur as a result a tax liability. Ordinarily the executor or administrator will pay the inheritance tax (IHT) using funds from the Estate. Trustees are responsible for paying IHT on trusts. The

This Q&A considers who is liable to pay the legal costs of a shareholders’ dispute, where the dispute is between two or more shareholders of a company in their capacity as shareholders of the company and the company is not (and is not likely to become) insolvent. Types of shareholder dispute Shareholders' disputes tend to arise in one of two situations: • the dispute relates to the basis on which the shareholders have agreed to establish a company, ie there a contractual dispute between them that may or may not be based on a written shareholders’ agreement, joint venture agreement or similar agreement (in addition to the company’s articles of association), or • the dispute relates to the basis on which the company is being managed, particularly where the shareholders are also directors of the company A minority shareholder may decide to deal with a dispute through the courts by bringing: • unfair prejudice proceedings (see Practice Note: Unfair prejudice claims—fundamentals) • a derivative claim

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: This was a case where a bankruptcy order, made on the application of the bankrupt, Ms Radeva, had been annulled as of right where the debtor’s COMI was found not to be in England and Wales following an application made by the majority creditor, Mr Kooter. The question arose as to who should bear the trustees’ costs. The court held that this was a case where there was no entirely fair outcome. Mr Kooter had been successful in his application to annul. The trustees were officers of the court who had carried out their duties. The court was satisfied that Ms Radeva should bear the trustees’ costs in their entirety and on the indemnity basis, but the trustees also sought an order against Mr Kooter, in circumstances where it was unlikely that Ms Radeva would be able to meet any costs order made against her. The court held that the most just outcome was a limited costs order against Mr Kooter. Written by Lauren Kreamer, barrister at Radcliffe Chambers.