EG 12-10-1913-10-2019, 17:31
P.57 Interview with Joanne Wicks QC about her career at the property bar (she acted for the tenant in Franses and also the landlord in the EMA lease frustration case)
p.60. Professional negligence in property transactions. There have been £1BN neg claims against property lawyers in the last 10 years. Poor service, not maintaining standards, focus on profitability rather than client service, esp. in resi which produces the greatest number of complaints to SRA in relation to lack of actual advice and care & attention. Missing deadlines, failing to read documents, assuming things rather than checking facts or law, not keeping clients advised, failing to properly amend precedents, and not keeping proper notes are the root of the problem. Everyone should read this article and the cases mentioned. We have all been there…
p.62 Agricultural Law. Excellent article setting out some of the issues relating to a landowner’s ability to develop farmland. Including the planning objections of tenants who will lose their rights to use the land, the inability to get right of access to the tenanted land so as to compl with planning conditions, tenants under the 1986 Act,NTQ of part, surrenders, 1995 Farm business tenancies & ineffective break clauses, etc.
p.64 Planning. Special Development Orders - which permit certain types of development without planning permission, & their potential use in cases of urgency such as Brexit consequences (M20/access works/parking sites/etc.) such as Manston airport.
p.65 Rectification. Explains 'this summer's blockbuster decision’ of FSHC Group Holdings v GLAS Trust Corporation  CA. This disagrees with the HL Chartbrook v Persimmon concept of only looking at objective issues to decide whether there should be equitable rectification. The court held that rectification of a document will be allowed if it differs from the terms that a prior agreement stated that the document would have, and this will be interpreted on objective terms. But it will also be possible where there is no prior agreement to enter into a document, and then where the parties have an agreed understanding or common intention or communication about what a particular provision in a contract requires, that subjective belief or agreement should take precedence over the hypothetical reasonable observer would consider the words means. (This article and the case needs to be read after a strong expresso!)