- Published on
Legal Terms - competence n. (of witnesses)
A person's ability to testify in court as a *witness. In general, anyone with a reasonable mind and sufficient comprehension can testify as a witness. Until it seems to the court that a kid is incapable of providing understandable testimony, the youngster is competent to testify. A youngster under the age of 14 may only provide *unsworn testimony, nevertheless. In most cases, an accused person's spouse or civil partner can be called as a witness for the defense and is also considered competent (though typically not a *compellable witness) in court.
A person's ability to testify in court as a *witness. In general, anyone with a reasonable mind and sufficient comprehension can testify as a witness. Until it seems to the court that a kid is incapable of providing understandable testimony, the youngster is competent to testify. A youngster under the age of 14 may only provide *unsworn testimony, nevertheless. In most cases, an accused person's spouse or civil partner can be called as a witness for the defense and is also considered competent (though typically not a *compellable witness) in court.
- Published on
Legal Terms - capable patient, or competent patient
a patient who is able to give their mental approval for medical care. According to section 3(1) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, a competent patient is one who can make decisions for themselves, meaning that they can comprehend and remember pertinent information, consider it while making decisions, and communicate their decisions. It is important to distinguish between a patient who is competent and one who is *incompetent*. Consent is necessary before treating the former, but not the latter. A competent patient has the right to decline any medical intervention, including therapy that could save his life, and his wishes must be honored. The Ability of the Mind
Act states that unless there is evidence to the contrary, a medical professional should presume that a patient is competent. According to Re C (Adult: Refusal of Treatment) [1994] 1 FLR 31 and Re B (Adult: Refusal of Medical Treatment) [2002] EWHC 429 (Fam), a person should not be treated as incompetent simply because he makes a poor decision.
a patient who is able to give their mental approval for medical care. According to section 3(1) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, a competent patient is one who can make decisions for themselves, meaning that they can comprehend and remember pertinent information, consider it while making decisions, and communicate their decisions. It is important to distinguish between a patient who is competent and one who is *incompetent*. Consent is necessary before treating the former, but not the latter. A competent patient has the right to decline any medical intervention, including therapy that could save his life, and his wishes must be honored. The Ability of the Mind
Act states that unless there is evidence to the contrary, a medical professional should presume that a patient is competent. According to Re C (Adult: Refusal of Treatment) [1994] 1 FLR 31 and Re B (Adult: Refusal of Medical Treatment) [2002] EWHC 429 (Fam), a person should not be treated as incompetent simply because he makes a poor decision.
- Published on
Legal Terms - Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)
an organization that combines the duties of the old *Office of Fair Trading with the former Competition Commission, which oversaw competition law enforcement in the UK. It was founded in April 2014 under the auspices of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act of 2013.
an organization that combines the duties of the old *Office of Fair Trading with the former Competition Commission, which oversaw competition law enforcement in the UK. It was founded in April 2014 under the auspices of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act of 2013.
- Published on
Legal Terms - competition law
the area of law that deals with controlling *trade restrictions, *anticompetitive behavior, and *abuses of market power or dominating position. *Cartels and other business restrictive agreements are forbidden by these regulations. The legislative provisions in the UK are included in the Enterprise Act 2002 and the Competition Act 1998. The legislative guidelines in this field, which make up EU competition law, are found throughout the EU in *Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and regulations established under those provisions. Victims of competition law violations have the right to *group lawsuit thanks to EU regulation 93/13, which was incorporated into UK law by the Consumer Rights Act of 2015. Antitrust law is the term for competition law in the USA.
the area of law that deals with controlling *trade restrictions, *anticompetitive behavior, and *abuses of market power or dominating position. *Cartels and other business restrictive agreements are forbidden by these regulations. The legislative provisions in the UK are included in the Enterprise Act 2002 and the Competition Act 1998. The legislative guidelines in this field, which make up EU competition law, are found throughout the EU in *Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and regulations established under those provisions. Victims of competition law violations have the right to *group lawsuit thanks to EU regulation 93/13, which was incorporated into UK law by the Consumer Rights Act of 2015. Antitrust law is the term for competition law in the USA.
- Published on
Legal Terms - competitive tendering
the bringing of competition to the delivery of public services with the goal of raising the level of quality and economy of these services. Public services were provided by the organization (often a private sector business) that submitted the most competitive offer for the service in question. This had an impact on a broad spectrum of public agencies, including the jail service and municipal authorities. The services that were most frequently rendered in this manner included school lunch delivery, residential care for the elderly, and garbage collection. Specifically, these regulations were found in the Local Government Acts of 1988 and 1992. The Local Government Act of 1999 established an obligation to deliver *best value in lieu of mandatory competitive tendering.
When doing their duties, authorities must consider economy, efficiency, and effectiveness.
the bringing of competition to the delivery of public services with the goal of raising the level of quality and economy of these services. Public services were provided by the organization (often a private sector business) that submitted the most competitive offer for the service in question. This had an impact on a broad spectrum of public agencies, including the jail service and municipal authorities. The services that were most frequently rendered in this manner included school lunch delivery, residential care for the elderly, and garbage collection. Specifically, these regulations were found in the Local Government Acts of 1988 and 1992. The Local Government Act of 1999 established an obligation to deliver *best value in lieu of mandatory competitive tendering.
When doing their duties, authorities must consider economy, efficiency, and effectiveness.
- Published on
Legal Terms -Complainant
A person who formally reports that an offense has been committed in criminal proceedings. The individual who is accused of being the victim of a sexual offense, such as rape, is known as the complainant. In some situations, the complainant is legally permitted to remain anonymous, and the court may not allow the presentation of any evidence regarding her prior sexual history.
A person who formally reports that an offense has been committed in criminal proceedings. The individual who is accused of being the victim of a sexual offense, such as rape, is known as the complainant. In some situations, the complainant is legally permitted to remain anonymous, and the court may not allow the presentation of any evidence regarding her prior sexual history.
- Published on
The concepts of express grant and express reservation in the context of creating easements.
The express grant or reservation is often used and straightforward method for creating easements. Firstly, it may be beneficial to review the definition of an express grant or an express reserve.
Key terms: express grant or express reservation
Celine possesses a piece of real estate and transfers a portion of it to Jim through a sale. He desires to utilize a portion of Clara's driveway in order to gain access to his property. She will authorize him to do so in the legal document. However, Clara also desires to retain the ability to utilize the portion of the driveway located on Jim's property. She intends to explicitly reserve this right in the deed.
The express grant or reservation is often used and straightforward method for creating easements. Firstly, it may be beneficial to review the definition of an express grant or an express reserve.
Key terms: express grant or express reservation
Celine possesses a piece of real estate and transfers a portion of it to Jim through a sale. He desires to utilize a portion of Clara's driveway in order to gain access to his property. She will authorize him to do so in the legal document. However, Clara also desires to retain the ability to utilize the portion of the driveway located on Jim's property. She intends to explicitly reserve this right in the deed.
- Published on
land Law - Implied Grant or Implied Reservation
Implied grant or implied reservation refers to the legal concept where certain rights or privileges are assumed to be granted or reserved, even when they are not explicitly stated or written down.
An implied grant or reservation of an easement occurs when there are no explicit terms of grant or reservation in a legal instrument, however it is still possible to infer the existence of an easement from the document. Implied grant
Firstly, we shall examine the process by which easements might be given impliedly inside a deed. To grant an easement is to give permission for a certain right to be exercised on one's land for the benefit of another, typically on neighboring land.
There are four methods by which an easement can be granted impliedly, namely: by necessity, through common intention, under the rule established in the case of Wheeldon v Burrows, and by the operation of section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925.
Implied grant or implied reservation refers to the legal concept where certain rights or privileges are assumed to be granted or reserved, even when they are not explicitly stated or written down.
An implied grant or reservation of an easement occurs when there are no explicit terms of grant or reservation in a legal instrument, however it is still possible to infer the existence of an easement from the document. Implied grant
Firstly, we shall examine the process by which easements might be given impliedly inside a deed. To grant an easement is to give permission for a certain right to be exercised on one's land for the benefit of another, typically on neighboring land.
There are four methods by which an easement can be granted impliedly, namely: by necessity, through common intention, under the rule established in the case of Wheeldon v Burrows, and by the operation of section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925.
- Published on
Easement Impliedly Granted :Grant through necessity or mutual agreement
Firstly, we shall examine the inclusion of a reservation in the deed based on the concept of 'necessity'. Grant by necessity refers to a legal concept where certain rights or privileges are automatically granted due to the circumstances or nature of a situation.
This condition is applicable where the land would be completely isolated without the easement being granted, making it 'essential' for the use of the land. This phenomenon is particularly common in relation to two categories of rights: rights of support. For instance, if Lona possesses two adjacent terraced residences and decides to sell one of them, she would not want the new owner to begin demolishing the shared walls.
Lona may assert that she has been granted an implicit easement of support due to the necessity of accessing her front door, which can only be done by crossing through the neighboring garden. This easement is based on the rights of way. She sells a house and once again desires to ensure that the new owner does not impede her access. She could assert that a right of way has been implicitly given due to necessity.
The courts exhibit a high degree of rigor in assessing the requirement and have concluded that the land must be entirely unattainable.
Donald constructs a new dwelling for himself on his current garden and subsequently sells the original residence. By doing this, he effectively blocks access to the public highway. In order to reach the roadway, he would have to traverse the land that he had previously possessed. The new proprietor is declining to grant permission for this. Is Donald able to acquire the required easement?
It is highly probable that the response is affirmative. Access to the land that was previously possessed is essential for the utilization of the new dwelling. It is completely surrounded by land and does not have access to any bodies of water.
However, if there was an other method of accessing the land, even if it was less convenient, there would be no need to establish an easement by necessity.
Grant by mutual agreement
An easement might be impliedly included in a deed by common intention. These easements can be categorized as non-essential for land use, although were often intended by the parties for that purpose. Due to various factors, typically a mistake, the easement was inadvertently omitted from the deed.
Alan and Buddy have been neighbors for a number of years. Both individuals possess a semi-detached residence, and the dividing line between their properties extends along the center of a communal pathway. The pathway, which is a mere three feet in width, serves as the means of entry for both Alan and Buddy to reach their individual gardens. A conflict has emerged between them regarding the authorized usage of the pathway. The document does not provide any information or clarification on this matter. Has an implied easement been conveyed in the deed by common intention? This statement is derived from the case of Kent v Kavanagh, in which the court reached a consensus that, given the narrow width of the walkway (measuring only three feet), it would be impracticable for one property owner to reach their garden without trespassing onto the adjacent neighbor's property. The legal agreement must have explicitly meant for the path to be used in this manner, and it would consistently be the shared desire of the owners to do so.
Firstly, we shall examine the inclusion of a reservation in the deed based on the concept of 'necessity'. Grant by necessity refers to a legal concept where certain rights or privileges are automatically granted due to the circumstances or nature of a situation.
This condition is applicable where the land would be completely isolated without the easement being granted, making it 'essential' for the use of the land. This phenomenon is particularly common in relation to two categories of rights: rights of support. For instance, if Lona possesses two adjacent terraced residences and decides to sell one of them, she would not want the new owner to begin demolishing the shared walls.
Lona may assert that she has been granted an implicit easement of support due to the necessity of accessing her front door, which can only be done by crossing through the neighboring garden. This easement is based on the rights of way. She sells a house and once again desires to ensure that the new owner does not impede her access. She could assert that a right of way has been implicitly given due to necessity.
The courts exhibit a high degree of rigor in assessing the requirement and have concluded that the land must be entirely unattainable.
Donald constructs a new dwelling for himself on his current garden and subsequently sells the original residence. By doing this, he effectively blocks access to the public highway. In order to reach the roadway, he would have to traverse the land that he had previously possessed. The new proprietor is declining to grant permission for this. Is Donald able to acquire the required easement?
It is highly probable that the response is affirmative. Access to the land that was previously possessed is essential for the utilization of the new dwelling. It is completely surrounded by land and does not have access to any bodies of water.
However, if there was an other method of accessing the land, even if it was less convenient, there would be no need to establish an easement by necessity.
Grant by mutual agreement
An easement might be impliedly included in a deed by common intention. These easements can be categorized as non-essential for land use, although were often intended by the parties for that purpose. Due to various factors, typically a mistake, the easement was inadvertently omitted from the deed.
Alan and Buddy have been neighbors for a number of years. Both individuals possess a semi-detached residence, and the dividing line between their properties extends along the center of a communal pathway. The pathway, which is a mere three feet in width, serves as the means of entry for both Alan and Buddy to reach their individual gardens. A conflict has emerged between them regarding the authorized usage of the pathway. The document does not provide any information or clarification on this matter. Has an implied easement been conveyed in the deed by common intention? This statement is derived from the case of Kent v Kavanagh, in which the court reached a consensus that, given the narrow width of the walkway (measuring only three feet), it would be impracticable for one property owner to reach their garden without trespassing onto the adjacent neighbor's property. The legal agreement must have explicitly meant for the path to be used in this manner, and it would consistently be the shared desire of the owners to do so.
- Published on
Impliedly Granting an easement in accordance with the legal principle established in the case of Wheeldon v Burrows.
An further method by which easements can be granted implicitly within a deed is by the application of the precedent set in the case of Wheeldon v Burrows. This scenario only occurs when a landowner decides to sell a portion of their land to another individual. The transfer would inherently include all the rights of enjoyment that the previous landowner possessed.
Granting of an easement in accordance with the legal principle established in the case of Wheeldon v Burrows.
An alternative method by which easements can be granted implicitly in a deed is through the legal principle established in the case of Wheeldon v Burrows. This scenario only occurs when a landowner sells a portion of their land to another individual. The transfer would inherently include all the rights of enjoyment that the previous landowner possessed.
Marcella possesses an expansive parcel of land that is divided into two separate halves, known as plots A and B. Under her ownership, she utilized a pathway on the property that provides direct access to a publicly accessible forested area. Marcella sells plot B and keeps plot A. The transfer document does not explicitly establish an easement that permits the owner of plot B to maintain their usage of the path. Is it possible for the current owner of plot B to assert a right of easement based on this regulation?
The primary objective of this regulation is to infer the inclusion of all quasi-easements that were utilized by the seller before the transfer, within any conveyance.
Definition: Quasi-easements
This refers to the utilization of a piece of property that would have been subject to an easement if it had not been fully owned by one individual. Granting oneself a right of way across land that one owns is not feasible, as it is unneeded. Only specific rights can qualify as easements under this regulation, and they must satisfy the following criteria: There exists a quasi-easement. The right was being utilized directly before the land was transferred. The right must be uninterrupted and clearly evident (such that its usage is easily recognizable). The right is essential for the rational satisfaction of the property.
George had a fair and just lease of a house for a duration of seven years. During his tenure, he utilized a driveway that traversed the landlord's property. There was an independent entrance to the land, hence the concept of necessity did not apply in this case. The landlord attempted to prevent George from utilizing the driveway.
Is the landlord capable of doing this?
The court in the case of Borman v Griffith determined that the individual was legally allowed to use the driveway because it was clearly visible and necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of the property. The landlord formerly possessed the drive and the two plots of land were once under the landlord's hands. The easement was inferred utilizing the principle established in the legal case of Wheeldon v Burrows.
An further method by which easements can be granted implicitly within a deed is by the application of the precedent set in the case of Wheeldon v Burrows. This scenario only occurs when a landowner decides to sell a portion of their land to another individual. The transfer would inherently include all the rights of enjoyment that the previous landowner possessed.
Granting of an easement in accordance with the legal principle established in the case of Wheeldon v Burrows.
An alternative method by which easements can be granted implicitly in a deed is through the legal principle established in the case of Wheeldon v Burrows. This scenario only occurs when a landowner sells a portion of their land to another individual. The transfer would inherently include all the rights of enjoyment that the previous landowner possessed.
Marcella possesses an expansive parcel of land that is divided into two separate halves, known as plots A and B. Under her ownership, she utilized a pathway on the property that provides direct access to a publicly accessible forested area. Marcella sells plot B and keeps plot A. The transfer document does not explicitly establish an easement that permits the owner of plot B to maintain their usage of the path. Is it possible for the current owner of plot B to assert a right of easement based on this regulation?
The primary objective of this regulation is to infer the inclusion of all quasi-easements that were utilized by the seller before the transfer, within any conveyance.
Definition: Quasi-easements
This refers to the utilization of a piece of property that would have been subject to an easement if it had not been fully owned by one individual. Granting oneself a right of way across land that one owns is not feasible, as it is unneeded. Only specific rights can qualify as easements under this regulation, and they must satisfy the following criteria: There exists a quasi-easement. The right was being utilized directly before the land was transferred. The right must be uninterrupted and clearly evident (such that its usage is easily recognizable). The right is essential for the rational satisfaction of the property.
George had a fair and just lease of a house for a duration of seven years. During his tenure, he utilized a driveway that traversed the landlord's property. There was an independent entrance to the land, hence the concept of necessity did not apply in this case. The landlord attempted to prevent George from utilizing the driveway.
Is the landlord capable of doing this?
The court in the case of Borman v Griffith determined that the individual was legally allowed to use the driveway because it was clearly visible and necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of the property. The landlord formerly possessed the drive and the two plots of land were once under the landlord's hands. The easement was inferred utilizing the principle established in the legal case of Wheeldon v Burrows.
