Property case law update: December 2011

20 Dec 2011

Potter v Dyer

Citation: Potter v Dyer – 30.11.11 – CA – [2011] EWCA 1417

Keywords: Misrepresentation, Affirmation, Joint tenancies, Notice to quit by one tenant.

Held: A’s case involving an argument that he could partially affirm a contract but remain entitled to rescind the remainder was unsupported by authority. The notion of partial affirmation was rejected.

K/S Victoria Street v House of Fraser

Citation: K/S Victoria Street v House of Fraser – 1.12.11 – ChD – [2011] EWHC 3179

Held: House of Fraser's attempt to skin a cat another way fails. Permission to appeal refused re their attempts to amend in order to advance their previously unsuccessful case on the basis of estoppel by convention.

Islington LBC v Boyle

Citation: Islington LBC v Boyle – 6.12.11 – CA – [2011] EWCA Civ 1450

Keywords: Secure tenancy, possession, residence requirement, tenant not living at property for four years.

Held: A finding that the tenant still in occupation of the premises despite her four year absence was insufficient. The residence requirement for a secure tenancy was that the tenant occupy the premises as her only or principal home. The Judge had failed to consider whether it was her only or principal home. Case remitted.

Banks v Morgan

Citation: Banks v Morgan – 15.12.11 – CA – [2011] EWCA Civ 1568

Keywords: Rights of Way, the use of plans to define the extent of rights, agreements, orders and finality.

Note: This judgment should be taken a cautionary tale for practitioners. Parties found themselves involved in a multiplicity of proceedings with confused decisions and agreements. Clear plans accompanied by clear defining declarations or terms of agreement are key to properly resolving property disputes for your clients and their successors.


This content is provided free of charge for information purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. No responsibility for the accuracy and/or correctness of the information and commentary set out in the article, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed or accepted by any member of Chambers or by Chambers as a whole.


Please note that we do not give legal advice on individual cases which may relate to this content other than by way of formal instruction of a member of Gatehouse Chambers. However, if you have any other queries about this content please contact: