Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

Dissenting beneficiary.

Land, Registered Land, Planning law etc.

Re: Dissenting beneficiary.

Postby Hairyloon » Wed Sep 13, 2017 8:05 pm

atticus wrote:You miss the point that the event giving rise to the pre-emption right may not happen for some time.

If you give me a right of first refusal if you wish to sell, I cannot exercise that right until such time as you wish to sell. As long as you do not have that wish, I cannot exercise that right.

No, I understand that perfectly well, but the disposition has to be the agreement that sets out those rights. If not, then for what purpose did parliament include the exception?
Is a court really entitled to say "Well parliament messed up: they shouldn't have put that bit in"?
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10011
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Dissenting beneficiary.

Postby theycantdothat » Thu Sep 14, 2017 9:14 am

Hairyloon wrote:but the disposition has to be the agreement that sets out those rights.


Whilst an option creates an immediate interest in land (it is something like, if not actually, a conditional contract) a right of pre-emption does not. No interest in land exists until it is triggered. However, there is still a right and it is that right that the Act covers along with others.
theycantdothat
 
Posts: 1144
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 7:36 pm

Re: Dissenting beneficiary.

Postby Hairyloon » Thu Sep 14, 2017 10:36 am

theycantdothat wrote:
Hairyloon wrote:but the disposition has to be the agreement that sets out those rights.


Whilst an option creates an immediate interest in land (it is something like, if not actually, a conditional contract) a right of pre-emption does not. No interest in land exists until it is triggered.

There is not no interest: the party to the right clearly has an interest, else he would not seek the right. "Interest" is another word with a distinct meaning in Legalise.
But also, is it right to call it a right? The way it is set out, at least in the one I am looking at, it confers an obligation on the purchaser rather than a right to the vendor.

However, there is still a right and it is that right that the Act covers along with others.

Does it though? The later judgement makes it so that the Act does not cover them with any effect whatsoever.
The intention of the Act is clear, and as expressed by Hodge: this appears to be a case of unelected judges subverting the will of the people, and actually doing it, not just doing something to upset Mr Murdoch.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10011
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Dissenting beneficiary.

Postby atticus » Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:45 am

When and how did "the people" express their will?

The judges have done their job: in this case to interpret and apply a statute.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19699
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Dissenting beneficiary.

Postby Hairyloon » Thu Sep 14, 2017 12:00 pm

atticus wrote:When and how did "the people" express their will?

By electing a parliament who passed the bill. You remember that thing called "Democracy" that we used to have? ;)

The judges have done their job: in this case to interpret and apply a statute.

Clearly one of them has got it wrong. I assume that you know that one of them now sits at the Supreme Court?
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10011
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Dissenting beneficiary.

Postby atticus » Thu Sep 14, 2017 12:06 pm

Did you express a view on this subject when you voted?

Yes, we elect Parliaments. But that is so very far from saying that this law represents the will of the people. Our democracy is a representative democracy.

The Supreme Court consts of 13 Justices. Presumably you know that. They usually sit in panels of 5 or 7.

Justices of the Supreme Court do not sit in the Court of Appeal.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19699
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Dissenting beneficiary.

Postby atticus » Thu Sep 14, 2017 12:09 pm

which judge? Neither Hodge nor Blackburne are or have been Supreme Court Justices.

ETA - Ah, you confuse Lord Hodge, Scottish judge, with Judge Hodge QC. Different judges.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19699
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Dissenting beneficiary.

Postby Hairyloon » Thu Sep 14, 2017 1:08 pm

atticus wrote:which judge? Neither Hodge nor Blackburne are or have been Supreme Court Justices.

ETA - Ah, you confuse Lord Hodge, Scottish judge, with Judge Hodge QC. Different judges.

Ah, OK.
I assumed that it would make no odds anyway: he was a High Court Judge at the time of the judgment and that would be what mattered.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10011
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Dissenting beneficiary.

Postby Hairyloon » Thu Sep 14, 2017 1:16 pm

atticus wrote:Did you express a view on this subject when you voted?

D'you know, I didn't actually vote in 1959. Shocking I know since we'd not long fought a war over freedoms, but there you go...

Yes, we elect Parliaments. But that is so very far from saying that this law represents the will of the people. Our democracy is a representative democracy.

Oh, we could argue that one for days, but it would be a distraction.
The point here is that the court has declared supremacy over parliament: the judge has overwritten the intentions of parliament on the grounds that he think they were in error.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10011
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Dissenting beneficiary.

Postby atticus » Thu Sep 14, 2017 1:23 pm

That is a misinterpretation of what the judges said. And a distraction.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19699
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

PreviousNext

Return to Land Law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest