A venture can result in a partnership by conduct
The Court of Appeal (CoA) upheld the High Court judgement that profit-sharing is not a prerequisite for a partnership. The Court assessed whether the management of investments by
Paddocks are not part of the grounds of the dwelling
The Upper Tribunal (UT) confirmed that a paddock acquired as part of the purchase of a dwelling did not constitute part of the grounds of the dwelling for the purposes of Section
Profit-sharing agreements: Be aware of their terms!
The Court of Appeal (CoA) was asked to consider whether the High Court was wrong to have concluded that a profit-sharing agreement was not engaged. Background: The claimant's
Transfer of property without knowledge
This case focuses on allegations of undue influence in signing a declaration of trust, forgery in buying a property, and property ownership issues. Background: Mr. Cissé
Sell-side deal fees are not deductible
The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s (CoA) decision clarifying that fees incurred after the decision to sell a subsidiary were ‘expenses of a capital nature’ and could
Is a floating caravan still a mobile home?
The Court of Appeal (CoA) was faced with the question as to whether a caravan stationed on a pontoon structure turning it into a houseboat is covered under the auspices of the
Can you patent an AI invention?
The Court of Appeal (CoA) overturned the first instance decision and held that an AI invention cannot be patented as nothing differentiates it from a typical computer programme
Collateral warranties are not construction contracts.
The Supreme Court has handed down an important decision which effectively restated that Section 104(1) of the Housing Grants, Construction & Regeneration Act 1996 (HGCRA 1996)
Ensure the appointed representative agreement’s terms are clear to avoid liability.
The Court of Appeal (CoA) was faced with a case dealing with the liability of a principal for the acts of its appointed representative. Background: In June 2015, Kession Capital
Can you use proprietary estoppel to enforce an oral agreement?
The High Court confirmed that proprietary estoppel is not available to enforce the terms of an ineffective oral agreement. Background: This case concerns the attempt by members