We have assumed that the prescriptive easement was acquired after the express easement was granted, and the type of prescriptive easement the dominant tenement is seeking to rely on is under the Prescription Act 1832 (PA 1832). Easements can be acquired in a number of ways. An express easement is agreed between landowners. An easement by prescription is acquired where there has been continuous use as of right for a period of 20 years without force, secrecy or permission. Most rights claimed by prescription are under PA 1832. Under PA 1832, s 2, the claimant must show a period of use of 20 years immediately preceding the claim. The claim (other than in respect of light) cannot be defeated purely by showing that it could have had no existence since 1189, but it may be

Case law indicates that easements may only be acquired by prescription by a freehold owner over freehold land (except prescriptive claims to light under the Prescription Act 1832). For a full discussion of this with reference to the relevant cases within the footnotes, see Commentary: Grant presumed to be by owner in fee simple: Halsbury's Laws of England [809]. The case of Kilgour v Gaddes provides that ‘…the right cannot be acquired merely by a tenant as against a tenant, but must be acquired by the owner of the fee in one of the tenements

The Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993 (the Commercial Agents Regulations), SI 1993/3053 do not contain a specific provision regulating assignment by the principal. Consider the provisions of the agreement and whether there is a prohibition on assignment. This could be an actual term in the written contract or implied because of the nature of the relationship between the parties and how the agency is/has been conducted. See Practice Note: Contract interpretation—terms implied by fact. Is the contract capable of assignment? An assignment is ‘an immediate transfer of an existing proprietary right, vested or contingent from one party to another’. Assignments can be effected either: • by consent—either by way of gift or for consideration, or • by operation of law—when they can occur during life or on death An assignment by operation

The rule against double proof prevents a double proof of what is in substance the same debt against the same insolvent estate. The Supreme Court in Re Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander Ltd (in administration) (No 2) considered how the rule against

Family proceedings are governed by the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955. The rules in respect of private law proceedings relating to children are largely contained in FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, Pt 12 and the accompanying FPR 2010, PD 12B, the Child Arrangements Programme. An application that relates to the welfare or upbringing of a child (such as an application under section 8 of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) for a child arrangements order), may only be withdrawn with the permission of the court (FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, 29.4). A person seeking permission to withdraw an application

A private company limited by shares can include provisions in its articles of association that would be similar, although not identical to the 'asset lock' provisions of a community interest company (CIC) without converting to a CIC. The Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) provides flexibility for private companies to customise their articles of association to include provisions that could restrict the distribution or transfer of assets and profits, similar to the statutory asset lock applicable to CICs. See Practice Note: A company’s

Section 895 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) provides that the provisions of Part 26 apply where a compromise or arrangement is proposed between a company and (a) its creditors, or any class of them, or (b) its members, or any class of them. It further elaborates that ‘company’: ‘a) in CA 2006, s 900 (powers of court

Pursuant to the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006), a limited company having a share capital may issue redeemable shares of any class. However, a public company may only issue redeemable shares if it is authorised to do so by its articles of association. A private company’s articles may exclude or restrict the issue of redeemable shares, but need not

A rights issue is an offer of shares to existing shareholders of a company, which gives them the right to subscribe for additional shares in proportion to their existing shareholding in the shares of the company, eg, a right for each shareholder to subscribe for one new share for every five shares that they hold. The shares are usually offered to the existing shareholders by means of renounceable letters or other negotiable instruments. If a company wants to raise new capital through an issue of its ordinary shares for cash, it is prima facie obliged by section 561 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) to do so by means of a rights issue in favour of its existing shareholders. CA 2006, s 561 sets out statutory pre-emption rights and states that a company must not allot equity securities to a person on any terms unless: • it has made an offer to each holder of ordinary shares to allot to such holder, on the same or more favourable

Any provision in a company's articles that purports to change the threshold of a resolution so that it can be passed more easily with an approval level that is lower than that which is stated in the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) will be invalid unless the CA 2006 expressly permits it (eg the CA 2006 permits a company to change its name by special resolution or by other means provided in the company's articles). Conversely, it will be acceptable for a company's

Article 22 of the model articles for private companies limited by shares (Model Articles) provides that a private company limited by shares has the power to issue different classes of share 'with such rights or restrictions as may be determined by ordinary resolution'. Given that the Model Articles include a provision stating that the company can issue different classes of shares by ordinary resolution,

If a company is formed with no limit on the liability of its members, the company is an ‘unlimited company’ (section 3(4) of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006)). An unlimited company is not restricted by all of the same rules regarding capital maintenance which apply to limited