An easement may be extinguished by • release, express or implied • by unity of ownership • by destruction of either tenement • by statute, or • by expiry Express release Assuming that the right of way was created by express grant, then an express release is advisable for the sake of certainty. The release is by the dominant owner as it is a release of the easement granted in favour of the dominant land. An express release of a legal easement must be made by deed to be effective at law. See our Precedent: Deed of release of easement. An agreement not made by deed may still be enforceable in equity provided that it complies with section 2(2) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 (ie is in writing, incorporates

Easements can be established other than by express deed and implied grant through a process known as prescription. Prescription is defined as ‘a title acquired by use or enjoyment had during the time and in the manner fixed by law’. One of the most common ways that an easement is established by prescription is under the Prescription Act 1832 (PA 1832). By virtue of PA 1832, s 2, an easement can be established by the dominant owner showing twenty year’s use without interruption of the servient land. There is, of course, the proviso that this twenty-year use was not achieved by violence or in secret or is dependent upon the will of another

The answer to this Q&A depends on the true construction of the words used in the grant of the easement. The most recent reported case in this area is Potel v Yeung. The property in question in that case was a block of flats. By the lease of one of the flats the tenant was given ‘the free and uninterrupted passage and running of water and soil gas and electricity from and to the Flat through the sewers drains and watercourses cables pipes and wires which now are or may be at any time hereafter be in under or passing through the building or any part thereof’. The tenant was also given the right to enter onto other parts of the Building including other flats with or without workmen etc ‘for the purpose of repairing cleansing maintaining or renewing

A section 32 buy-out policy is a deferred annuity contract. Where the transfer value paid to the section 32 policy is in respect of benefits which include rights to Guaranteed Minimum Pension (GMP), the insurer undertakes to pay the GMP to the policyholder from GMP payment age (age 65 for a man and 60 for a woman) or to pay the spouse’s GMP to the member’s widow or widower on the member’s death. Section 11 of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 provides that rights under approved pension arrangements are excluded from a bankrupt’s estate. 'Approved pension arrangements' include registered pension schemes and annuities purchased for the purpose of giving effect to rights under a registered pension scheme including an annuity in payment before 6 April 2006 giving effect to schemes which were approved under the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.

Easements, including rights to light, can be acquired by various means, including by prescription (long use). There are three ways in which a right to light may be acquired by prescription: at common law, by lost modern grant, or under the Prescription Act 1832. In a claim under PA 1832, actual enjoyment of the access of light to a ‘dwelling house, workshop or other building’ for 20 years without interruption is enough, unless there is written consent or agreement. However,

It would be possible to grant, by Will, a right of occupation or life interest in the caravan but not the underlying plot of land. However, you will need to consider how the occupant is going to access the caravan. This will depend on various factors including, in particular, what rights the testator has in respect of the caravan and the plot of land, whether there is a mobile home agreement in place and whether the person to benefit was living with the testator at the time

In private law children proceedings, the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010) provide, at FPR 2010, PD 12B, para 13, that on the making of an application for a child arrangements order, Cafcass shall identify any safety issues. This includes by the carrying out of safeguarding enquiries, including seeking information from local authorities and carrying out police checks (FPR 2010, PD 12B, para 13.3) and if possible undertaking telephone risk identification interviews with the parties. A record of any safety issues is then prepared for the court (FPR 2010, PD 12B, para 13.5) in the form of a safeguarding letter (or in Wales a safeguarding report). The safeguarding letter/report should be sent

An overriding interest is an interest in property which amounts to an exception to the general rule that in respect of registered land, any interest or right must be registered in order to bind a purchaser. The classes of overriding interest are circumscribed by the provisions of Schedules 1 and 3 to the Land Registration Act 2002 (LRA 2002). For example, short leases are excluded from the provisions. An overriding interest may, for example, prevent a mortgagee from asserting a right over such part of a property in which one party has acquired a beneficial interest despite that property being in the sole name of another. Where an overriding interest exists, the mortgagee cannot assert a right over that interest: see Williams & Glyn Bank v Boland,

An order for sale under section 24A of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) is always ancillary to certain other types of orders specified in MCA 1973, s 24A(1), usually a property adjustment order or a lump sum order. A property adjustment order or a lump sum order (other than one payable by instalments) may not be varied as to their substance. An order for the sale of property under MCA 1973, s 24A may be varied under MCA 1973, s 31(2)(f). The statutory power to vary relates only to an order for sale under MCA 1973, s 24A and not to the underlying property adjustment, lump sum or other order listed in MCA 1973, s 24A. Therefore, the variation of an order for sale can 'never directly affect the allocation

Since 1 October 2019, trustees of occupational pension schemes are required to state in their statement of investment principles their policy on the extent (if at all) to which they take account of members’ views, including (but not limited to) their ethical views and their views in relation to social and environmental impact and present and future quality of life (see Occupational Pension Schemes (Investment) Regulations 2005 (OPS(I)R 2005), SI 2005/3378, reg 2(3)(b)(vii)). Significantly, members’ views count as ‘non-financial matters’ and trustees do not have to take account of such matters. In fact, it may not be appropriate for trustees to take account of non-financial matters. In broad terms, this may only be appropriate if: (i) the trustees have good reason to think that scheme members share

The procedure for a scheme of arrangement is set out in the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006), and so is not subject to the amendments of the Insolvency Act 1986 which were made by the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 which made physical meetings the exception, rather than the rule. As such, the provisions of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (IR 2016), SI 2016/1024 which relate to decision making procedures by creditors or members of a company have no application in relation to schemes of arrangement. CA 2006, Pt 26 sets out a three stage process for schemes of arrangement: • first, there must be an application to the court to summon a meeting • secondly, documentation must be provided to those entitled to attend the meeting and the meeting itself must be held • thirdly, an application must be made to the court to sanction the scheme (with the scheme taking effect when

There is no reason in principle why the same land may not provide both ‘compensation’ and ‘gain’. There is no risk of double counting as the two concerns are very different. In practice, however, the issue is the use of the