Podcast Location:
Download it here [file size: 21.7 MB]
Categories:
Real Estate & Property Law
Remedies & Enforcement
Planning
Property Litigation
CPD Points:
Up to 1 point. details »

Due to the difference in guidelines between the SRA and the Bar Standards Board, CPD points are awarded differently for Solicitors, Barristers and Legal Executives:

Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority:
Listen and pass the quiz: Gain 1 CPD point (60 minutes)
Listen only, gain ½ a CPD point (30 minutes)

Regulated by the Bar Standards Board:
Listen and pass the quiz: Gain 1 accredited CPD point (60 minutes)

Regulated by ILEX:
Listen and pass the quiz: Gain 1 CPD point (60 minutes)
Listen only, gain ½ a CPD point (30 minutes)

Cost:
  • FREE
Length:
30 minutes of audio
(+ optional 5 minute online quiz)
Plays on Computer:
Yes Downloadable as MP3:    Yes
Contributor(s):
Course Aims:

This podcast aims to examine the recent High Court judgment in the case of HKRUK II (CHC) Ltd v Heaney. Stephen Bickford-Smith, who appeared for Mr. Heaney, gives a detailed insight into the facts of the case and the significant impact it has had on the way in which owner-occupiers, developers, surveyors, insurance companies, funders and prospective tenants of a proposed development - view the risks associated with potential rights of light infringements.

Outcomes:
After completing the course you will:
  • Be familiar with the facts and issues in the case of Heaney;
  • Understand what the Heaney judgment means for developers;
  • Be aware of the Law Commission’s recommendations regarding rights of light;
  • Have considered Stephen’s guidance for practitioners acting in rights of light cases.
Level:
Specialist Difficulty: 5 of 5
Classification:
Case Update
Legal Principles
Practical Guide
Sources and References:
  • AMEC Development v Jury’s Hotel (UK) Ltd (2001) 82 P & CR 22 at [12]-[13];
  • Blue Town Investments v Higgs and Hill plc [1990] 1 WLR 696;
  • Colls v Home and Colonial Stores Ltd [1904] AC 179;
  • Deakins v Hookings [1994] 1 EGLR 190;
  • Elliot v London Borough of Islington [1991] 1 EGLR 167;
  • Greenwich Healthcare NHS Trust v London and Quadrant Housing Trust [1998] 1 WLR 1749;
  • HXR UK II (CHC) Ltd v Heaney [2010] EWHC 2245 (Ch);
  • Jacklin v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [2007] EWCA Civ 181;
  • Jaggard v Sawyer [1995] 1 WLR 269 at 282F;
  • Law Commission ‘Easements, Covenants and Profits a Prendre’ (Law Com No 327);
  • Lunn Poly Ltd v Liverpool and Lancashire Properties Ltd [2007] L & TR 7;
  • Mayor and Burgesses of Waltham Forest London Borough Council v Oakmesh Ltd [2009] EWHC 1688 (Ch);
  • Midtown Ltd v City of London Real Property Co Ltd [2005] 1 EGLR 65 at [67];
  • Mortimer v Bailey [2005] BLR 85;
  • Pell Frischmann v Bow Valley (Iran) [2009] UK PC 45;
  • Regan v Paul Properties Ltd [2007] Ch 135 CA;
  • Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co22 [1895] 1 Ch 287;
  • Watson v Croft Promo-Sport [2009] EWCA Civ 15;
  • Well Barn Shoot v Shackleton [2003] EWCA Civ 02.

This podcast discusses in depth the impact of the recent High Court judgment in the case of HKRUK II (CHC) Ltd v Heaney with Stephen Bickford-Smith, the barrister who appeared for Mr Heaney.

Podcast added: 21/07/11

Start this CPDcast Activity

© CPDcast.com