Practice areas
Courts
Counsel most often instructed
Judgments by year
Recent cases
| Date | Case | Cited by |
|---|---|---|
| 20 Dec 2024 |
[2024] UKUT 414 (LC) · Upper Tribunal: Lands Chamber
Under section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925, a restrictive covenant is not obsolete merely because the land’s use has changed. The relevant question is…
|
|
| 20 Jun 2022 |
[2022] EWHC 1572 (Ch) · High Court: Chancery Division
Where parties make an informal, quasi-contractual arrangement concerning land, proprietary estoppel may arise from a sufficiently clear assurance, reasonable…
|
|
| 29 May 2019 |
[2019] EWHC 1350 (Ch) · High Court: Chancery Division
In a boundary dispute, registered title plans showing general boundaries do not determine the exact legal boundary. The court must assess the historical…
|
1 |
| 19 Jan 2018 |
[2018] EWHC 68 (Ch) · High Court: Chancery Division
In a dispute concerning family businesses operated as partnerships and a quasi-partnership company, the court held that assets acquired with business funds may…
|
|
| 9 Jul 2010 |
[2010] EWHC 1654 (Ch) · High Court: Chancery Division
A rent review clause is construed objectively by reference to the lease as a whole and its relevant factual and business context. The usual assumption is that…
|
|
| 14 Jul 2008 |
[2008] EWHC 1587 (Ch) · High Court: Chancery Division
Under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, a claimant must show both eligibility and that the deceased was making substantial…
|
2 |
Based on judgments published by The National Archives (Find Case Law) in which Allan Janes LLP is named as solicitors, counted under the firm's current name. The figures are minimums: not every judgment names the solicitors, and a judgment is counted only when we are confident who acted. The selection of cases listed here is limited, and does not include family, criminal or anonymised cases. Firm details include data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority. zoomLaw is independent and not connected with Allan Janes LLP. Something wrong or missing? Tell us. All law firms.