| 1 | Restrictive covenants: modification The Lands Tribunal has held that, even if the grounds had been satisfied, it would not have exercised its discretion to modify a restrictive covenant preventing development on a parcel of land because the developer had adopted a development policy that flouted its legal obligations. | Articles | 26-May-2011 |
| 2 | Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (Commencement No. ... Date: 19 September 2004. Information The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (Commencement No. 5) (Order) 2004 (Statutory Instrument 2004 No. 2173) was made on 21 August 2004 and will bring certain provisions of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CROWA 2000) into force in England on 19 September 2004. For more information, see Legal update, Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 - provisions coming into force on 19 September 2004. | Articles: other | 19-Sep-2004 |
| 3 | Regulations on Appeals Against Notices Relating To Means of ... Date: 2 June 2004. Information The consultation paper on Regulations on Appeals Against Notices Relating To Means of Access Under CROWA 2000 is available on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs website. For more information see the Legal update, Consultation on Regulations on Appeals Against Notices Relating To Means of Access Under CROWA 2000. Responses are requested by 2 June 2004. | Articles | 02-Jun-2004 |
| 4 | National Abstraction Charges Scheme Review 2004/2005 ... Date: 7 April 2004. Information The above Consultation paper is available on the Environment Agency website. Responses are requested by 7 April 2004. For more information on the consultation paper, see the PLC report, National Abstraction Charges Scheme Review 2004/2005. | Articles | 07-Apr-2004 |
| 5 | Restricted byways: Consultation ends | Articles | 18-Dec-2003 |
| 6 | Regulations for the relaxation or removal of Schedule 2 ... Date: 3 October 2003. Information: DEFRA has published a consultation paper on regulations relating to the removal of relaxation of general restrictions on access land. Comments are requested by 3 October 2003. For more information, see the Update, Consultation paper on the regulations for removal or relaxation of general restrictions on access land published. | Articles | 03-Oct-2003 |
| 7 | Spring House Freehold v Mount Cook Land Spring House Freehold Ltd v Mount Cook Land Ltd, 12 December, 2001 (Court of Appeal). | Articles: other | 21-Dec-2001 |
| 8 | Land Registration Bill: Electronic conveyancing-the ... The text of a paper delivered at the PLC Conference on the Land Registration Bill on 28 November, 2001 by Peter J G Williams, Eversheds. | Articles | 05-Dec-2001 |
| 9 | Land Registration Bill: Overview of the Bill The notes of a paper delivered at the PLC Conference on the Land Registration Bill on 28 November, 2001 by Emma Slessenger, Dechert | Articles | 05-Dec-2001 |
| 10 | The Land Registration Bill: Overriding interests The text of a paper delivered at the PLC Conference on the Land Registration Bill on 28 November, 2001 by Jonathan Kelly, Lovells. | Articles: other | 05-Dec-2001 |
| 11 | Copas v Royal Borough of Windsor Copas v Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, 7 February, 2001 (Court of Appeal). | Articles | 08-Nov-2001 |
| 12 | Nationwide Building Society v James Beachamp Nationwide Building Society v James Beachamp (a firm), 2 March, 2001 (Court of Appeal). | Articles | 08-Nov-2001 |
| 13 | Lambeth London Borough Council v Blackburn Lambeth London Borough Council v Blackburn, 14 June, 2001 (Court of Appeal). | Articles | 22-Oct-2001 |
| 14 | Campbell v Griffin Campbell v Griffin, 27 June, 2001 (Court of Appeal). | Articles | 19-Oct-2001 |
| 15 | Guise v Drew Guise v Drew, 6 June, 2001 (High Court). | Articles | 19-Oct-2001 |
| 16 | R (on the application of Beresford) v City of Sunderland R (on the application of Beresford) v City of Sunderland, 26 July, 2001(Court of Appeal). | Articles | 15-Oct-2001 |
| 17 | Easements: right to reduce The High Court has held that easements can only be reduced when the full use of such an easement is unreasonable. | Articles | 02-Oct-2000 |