Comments for Rowena Meager's Property Law Blog

Comment on The Registration of Town & Village Greens: A New Line of Attack by Kevin Leigh

Kevin Leigh — Mon, 14 May 2012 08:44:43 +0000

A very helpful summary in an interesting area of law. I think the court’s decision is a triumph for common sense. The law is in danger of tipping too far in this area and, like adverse possession, such declarations if granted are a serious interference with a party’s lawful land ownership.
It is worth recalling the comment of Megarry J, as he then was, in Neilson v Poole, where he said that it would a shame if an Englishman had to quarrel over every interference with the ownership of his land, no matter how trivial. Indulgence or ignorance where no harm occurs to one’s ownership should not be translated IMHO into lawful rights by others, often sadly as a device to impede lawful use or development.

Comment on Jones -v- Kernott (Round 4) by Kernott v Jones on BBC Breakfast - Marilyn Stowe Blog

Kernott v Jones on BBC Breakfast - Marilyn Stowe Blog — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 16:53:19 +0000

[...] Rowena Meager’s Property Law Blog | Jones v Kernott (Round 4) – “I read the Supreme Court’s judgment with a sense of disappointment.” Posted by Marilyn Stowe on 10 November 2011 Categories: Cohabiting Couples Tags: BBC Breakfast, cohabitation, cohabiting couples, Kernott v Jones, Marilyn Stowe, Stowe Family Law, Supreme Court [...]

Comment on Jones -v- Kernott (Round 4) by Kernott v Jones on BBC Breakfast « Untouched Smile | Care Your Child

Kernott v Jones on BBC Breakfast « Untouched Smile | Care Your Child — Sat, 12 Nov 2011 22:41:28 +0000

[...] Rowena Meager’s Property Law Blog | Jones v Kernott (Round 4) – “I read the Supreme Court’s judgment with a sense of disappointment.” [...]

Comment on Jones -v- Kernott (Round 4) by Kernott v Jones on BBC Breakfast | Marilyn Stowe Family Law and Divorce Blog

Thu, 10 Nov 2011 20:10:11 +0000

[...] Rowena Meager’s Property Law Blog | Jones v Kernott (Round 4) – “I read the Supreme Court’s judgment with a sense of disappointment.” [...]

Comment on Jones -v- Kernott (Round 4) by Leases: Certainty of Term « Rowena Meager's Property Law Blog

Leases: Certainty of Term « Rowena Meager's Property Law Blog — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 16:16:42 +0000

[...] Co-operative [2011] UKSC 52. As decisions go it was perhaps not quite as “exciting” as Kernott -v- Jones but, nevertheless, the fact that a judicial committee of seven was convened to hear the case should [...]

Comment on Jones -v- Kernott (Round 4) by John Morgan

John Morgan — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 21:52:55 +0000

Lord Walker and Lady Hale at paragraph 48 say: “Insofar as the judge did not in so many words infer that this was their intention, it is clearly the intention which reasonable people would have had had they thought about it at the time. But in our view it is an intention which he both could and should have inferred from their conduct.”

Also at paragraph 47: “But if it cannot deduce exactly what shares were intended, it may have no alternative but to ask what their intentions as reasonable and just people would have been had they thought about it at the time. This is a fallback position which some courts may not welcome, but the court has a duty to come to a conclusion on the dispute put before it.”

Although “imputing” is not considered the best solution my understanding from reading the judgement, only a brief reading, was that imputing is a solution that should be used if the court is unable to deduce or infer what the actual intentions were.

In paragraph 36 Lord Walker and lady Hale say that “…there will continue to be many difficult cases in which the court has to reach a conclusion on sparse and conflicting evidence. It is the court’s duty to reach a decision on even the most difficult case. As the deputy judge (Mr Nicholas Strauss QC) said in his admirable judgment [2009] EWHC 1713 (Ch), [2010] 1 WLR 2401, para 33 (in the context of a discussion of fairness) “that is what courts are for.”

I think that there is a place for imputing intention on parties where the evidence is “sparse and conflicting”.

I am pleased, even though my pleasure or displeasure is irrelevant, with this decision as I had a hard time accepting the Court of Appeal decision.

Comment on Beneficial Interests in Jointly Owned Property: Kernott v Jones (Round 3) by Jones -v- Kernott (Round 4) « Rowena Meager's Property Law Blog

Jones -v- Kernott (Round 4) « Rowena Meager's Property Law Blog — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 21:00:02 +0000

[...] the first appeal (from the decision of the trial judge) here and the appeal to the Court of Appeal here. My views since those posts were written are unchanged and it will come as no surprise to learn [...]

Comment on Beneficial Interests in the Family Home: The Rot Sets In by Jones -v- Kernott (Round 4) « Rowena Meager's Property Law Blog

Jones -v- Kernott (Round 4) « Rowena Meager's Property Law Blog — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 21:00:00 +0000

[...] I have previously written about the first appeal (from the decision of the trial judge) here and the appeal to the Court of Appeal here. My views since those posts were written are unchanged [...]

Comment on Adverse Possession of River Bed by Kaylee

Kaylee — Sun, 25 Sep 2011 13:14:57 +0000

Articles like this just make me want to visit your wsebtie even more.

Comment on New Greens: Neighbourhood or Neighbourhoods? by Legal Service- Real Estate Property

Legal Service- Real Estate Property — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 07:35:20 +0000

After reading this we feel that conclusion that investigation has to be done on the bases from where the users were and that Landowner has the right to ask anyone to off his land if used for any purpose other than his permission.