Featured documents
R (Greyhound Board of Great Britain Ltd) v Welsh Ministers [2026] EWHC 670 (Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling reinforces the constitutional divide between the courts and the legislature. It explains that the scheme and framework of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (GWA 2006) embody that separation of powers, and that any judicial attempt to recognise and enforce a common law obligation on Welsh Ministers to consult prior to introducing legislation in the Senedd would trespass upon that boundary. This is not a departure from established principle; case law has already upheld comparable rules for lawmakers in Scotland and at Westminster. However, this is the first express confirmation of the position for Welsh lawmakers, and the first time this dimension of the GWA 2006 has been analysed in such depth. The court examined earlier
The solution arrived through the United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC), a quasi‑judicial body handling mass claims, created under UN Security Council Resolution 687. By addressing environmental harm—most notably via its ‘F4’ claim class—the UNCC set a seminal benchmark shaping how international law and contemporary arbitral panels allocate financial responsibility for wartime ecological devastation. With present-day wars in areas such as Eastern Europe and the Middle East bringing dam breaches, strikes on chemical facilities, and the burning of farmland, the UNCC’s legacy endures as an essential reference point for states, global investors, and companies engaged in post‑conflict arbitration. The F4 claims: Quantifying the unquantifiable Prior to the 1990s, mechanisms in international law for war reparations overwhelmingly favoured property loss, foregone earnings, and bodily injury. The natural world was commonly treated as a mute, non-compensable victim of armed hostilities...
Understanding the farming business as a business Many farms still use long-standing structures that arose by habit, not strategy. Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common. While once effective, such setups can cause major issues around succession, tax planning and involving the next generation. A corporate team can take a fresh, business-led view of the farm, asking: Who owns the land and other critical assets? Who manages daily operations? Who carries the risk and who enjoys the return? What is the enduring plan for succession? From this review, the team can confirm whether the current setup is fit for purpose or if an alternative — for example an updated partnership agreement, a company, a limited liability partnership, or a blended model — would better meet the family’s aims. Tax efficiency through joined-up advice Tax sits at the centre of most
Most recent News
In this issue: Residential tenancies Key developments and horizon scanning Disputes and remedies Repairing obligations and dilapidations Enfranchisement and right to manage Trespass and adverse possession Contractual issues Additional Property Disputes updates Lex Talk®Property Disputes: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Residential tenancies Errors in section 21 possession procedure documents were not material ( Hamer v Levy) In Hamer v Levy [2026] EWCA Civ 662, the Court of Appeal ( Civil Division) allowed the appellant to seek permission to appeal, but nevertheless dismissed the appeal. She contested an order that had struck out her challenge to a District Judge’s possession order. The landlord had issued a section 21 notice to obtain possession of the property let under an assured shorthold tenancy. The Court...
The Master of the Rolls and the Minister of State for Justice have approved the 195th Practice Direction ( PD) Update, expanding the reach of the Damages Claim Portal ( DCP) in CPR PD 51ZB so that specified non-monetary claims-termed ‘ Other Remedy Claims’-can be lodged online alongside a principal damages claim, provided both sides have legal representation, rather than relying on paper filing. It further includes within scope disputes concerning unfair relationships under the Consumer Credit Act 2006, extending the update’s application. This reform shifts matters presently dealt with on paper into a digital workflow to enhance efficiency, aligning connected remedies with the same online route as the main damages claim. The amendments take effect on 27 May 2026. The additional category spans three remedies: injunctions, declarations and...
In this issue: Key developments and horizon scanning Repairing obligations and dilapidations Disputes and remedies Property disputes in Scotland Additional Property Disputes updates Lex Talk® Property Disputes: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Latest Q& As Key developments and horizon scanning MHCLG publishes factsheet on implementation of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 MHCLG has released a factsheet setting out how the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 ( RRA 2025) will be rolled out for assured tenancies in social housing. From 1 May 2026, the reforms will extend to the private rented sector and to assured social housing tenancies where the landlord is not a Private Registered Provider ( PRP). PRP social housing tenancies remain outside scope for now and are scheduled to be included from...
Eskander v General Medical Council [2026] EWCA Civ 372 What was the background Dr Amy Eskander appealed to the Court of Appeal against an order of Mr Justice Mansfield in the Administrative Court, which had struck out her statutory appeal challenging a Medical Practitioners Tribunal decision under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983 ( Me A 1983). The Tribunal had ordered a 12-month suspension. Section 40(4) Me A 1983 required any appeal to be lodged within 28 days of notification. She emailed her appellant’s notice to the Administrative Court Office on the final day, but the requisite fee was paid only after the cut-off. Mansfield J concluded the appeal was out of time because the notice was not filed with the fee, as mandated by CPR PD 52B, para 4.1, applying prior authority such as Gupta v GMC [2020] EWHC 38 ( Admin) and...
Crest Nicholson Regeneration Ltd and others v Ardmore Construction Ltd (in Administration) and others [2026] EWHC 789 ( TCC) What was the background? The claimants ( Crest), comprising developers and leaseholders, issued an application in the Technology and Construction Court before Constable J for building liability orders ( BLOs) under sections 130–131 of the Building Safety Act 2022 ( BSA 2022) against companies ‘associated’ with Ardmore Construction Ltd ( ACL), the design and build contractor on a residential development. Prior to the hearing, ACL entered administration. Crest asserted that ACL was liable for fire safety defects under section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 ( DPA 1972) and sought to extend that liability to its associated companies. The application advanced two strands of relief. First, an ‘anticipatory’ BLO rendering the associated companies jointly and severally liable for any liability later...
In this issue Key developments and horizon scanning Agricultural tenancies Contractual issues Residential tenancies Repairing obligations and dilapidations Neighbour and party wall disputes Additional Property Disputes updates Lex Talk® Property Disputes: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Key developments and horizon scanning MHCLG issues guidance packs for tenants in England renting from private landlords, addressing notices seeking possession, Rent Repayment Orders, and the adjustments arising under the Renters’ Rights Act from 1 May 2026. See LNB News 07/04/2026 30. Renters’ Rights Act 2025–related applications in FTT— Tribunal Procedure ( First-tier Tribunal) ( Property Chamber) ( Amendment) Rules 2026, SI 2026/391: these Rules update the Tribunal Procedure ( First-tier Tribunal) ( Property Chamber) Rules 2013, SI 2013/1169, to bring within the...
In this issue: Key developments and horizon scanning Disputes and remedies Rent and rates Repairing obligations and dilapidations Residential tenancies Lease covenants and obligations Enforcing security and property insolvency Enfranchisement and right to manage Property disputes in Scotland Additional Property Disputes updates Lex Talk®Property Disputes: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Key developments and horizon scanning Assured tenancy forms published ( Assured Tenancies ( Private Rented Sector) ( Prescribed Forms and Transitional Provisions) ( England) Regulations 2026) SI 2026/354 These Regulations specify fresh prescribed forms under the Housing Act 1988 for private assured tenancies, reflecting amendments made by the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 ( RRA 2025). They also keep the 2015 forms in play for defined...
In this issue: Renters’ Reform Act 2025 updates Key developments and horizon scanning Residential tenancies Repairing obligations and dilapidations Disputes and remedies Trespass and adverse possession Enfranchisement and right to manage Rent and rates Contractual issues Property disputes in Scotland Additional Property Disputes updates Lex Talk® Property Disputes: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Latest Q& As Renters’ Reform Act 2025 updates Assured Tenancies ( Private Rented Sector) ( Written Statement of Terms etc and Information Sheet) ( England) Regulations 2026 — SI 2026/324: This instrument prescribes the contents of the written statement of terms and other particulars to be provided for assured tenancies (excluding social housing assured tenancies) under section 16D of the Housing Act 1988, by setting out in the Schedule the mandatory terms and information. For existing tenancies within Schedule 6 to the RRA 2025, the required material is the current edition of ‘ The Renters’ Rights Act...
Siniakovich v Hassan- Soudey and others [2026] EWCA Civ 215 What are the practical implications of this case? Disputes about limitation and the point at which proceedings are ‘brought’ despite payment of an incorrect court fee can now be conclusively resolved by adhering to the Court of Appeal’s guidance: The issue of when an action is ‘brought’ under the Limitation Act 1980 is one of substance rather than form; it does not depend on interpreting the civil procedure rules or practice directions. For limitation, proceedings are brought when a claim form, stated with sufficient clarity, is first delivered to the court office and a fee is tendered or paid, or a help with fees form is filed. That is sufficient. Proceedings are still treated as brought (for limitation) even if the court issue fee paid is the wrong amount......
In this issue: Key developments and horizon scanning Repairing obligations and dilapidations Residential tenancies Service charges Rent and rates Disputes and remedies Neighbour disputes Enfranchisement and right to manage Contractual issues Easements and covenants Property disputes in Scotland Additional Property Disputes updates Lex Talk® Property Disputes: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Key developments and horizon scanning The Renters’ Rights Act 2025— SDLT The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 is intended to bring in tenant-favourable reforms, yet recent reporting has stressed that the roll-out of assured periodic tenancies may result in SDLT becoming payable on rent for some tenants in the years ahead. While these SDLT provisions are long-standing, general awareness remains limited. Andrew Kerr and Ella Perrett of Burges...
Cooper and others v Ludgate House Ltd [2026] EWHC 484 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of the case? The decision serves as a clear warning to parties proposing Part 36 settlements with several strands. The court will price each strand independently to determine whether the offer was bettered at trial. Accordingly, whether single‑issue or composite, any Part 36 proposal should be drafted so it can be readily quantified by the court; the tribunal must be able to identify, with confidence, who actually succeeded. Where an offer bundles disparate elements, each must be susceptible to valuation on the evidence before the court. It is not sufficient, as occurred here, simply to contend that the proposal outweighed the differential between the claimant’s damages and the defendant’s figure where no substantive evidence addresses that issue. Parties should, therefore, be slow to fold into a Part 36 offer terms that do...
Note: The CPRC has stopped distributing the supporting papers alongside the minutes, therefore no explanatory documents on the matters discussed accompany this News Analysis. A copy of the minutes can be found here: Minutes of the CPR Committee meeting Welcome, apologies and introductory remarks (item 1) It was reported to the committee that the Master of the Rolls plans to retire on 31 October 2026. The minutes for 5 December 2025 (see News Analysis: Minutes of the CPR Committee meeting—5 December 2025) were approved, subject to a small amendment. The action log was acknowledged, noting: ongoing service work, covering email service and associated postal matters the Welsh language consultation has concluded and replies are under review......
A copy of the minutes can be found here: Welcome, apologies and introductory remarks (item 1) The Chancellor of the High Court sent apologies. The record of the previous meeting (17 November 2025) was confirmed and approved. Expansion of OPRC rulemaking powers (item 2) Members were informed that the Minister of State for Courts and Tribunals had authorised work to begin on an affirmative statutory instrument to extend the OPRC’s powers to cover: money claims damages claims employment tribunals A draft was scheduled for the February meeting, with commencement presently envisaged in August 2026, subject to the parliamentary process. Online procedure rules (item 3) The committee noted that the consultation on the draft Online Procedure ( Core Rules and Practice Directions) 2026 closed on 16 January 2026. Feedback was broadly constructive, and members considered principal themes and technical drafting points, including the framing of powers and duties and whether any wording drifts into policy...
In this issue: Disputes and remedies Repairing obligations and dilapidations Service charges Contractual issues Rent and rates Enforcing security and property insolvency Property disputes in Scotland Additional Property Disputes updates Lex Talk® Property Disputes: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Latest Q& As Disputes and remedies Costs application following a partly successful rights to light claim ( Cooper v Ludgate House) In Cooper v Ludgate House Ltd [2026] EWHC 484 ( Ch), the Chancery Division addressed costs after a decision where flat leaseholders proved both rights to light and their infringement by the developer’s project. Damages in lieu were ordered on a negotiating basis—£350,000 for Mr Cooper and £500,000 for the Powells—while an injunction compelling the defendant to reduce the...
In this issue Key developments and horizon scanning Electronic communications Trespass and adverse possession Disputes and remedies Service charges Rent and rates Contractual issues Property disputes in Scotland Additional Property Disputes updates Lex Talk® Property Disputes: a Lexis® Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Latest Q& As Key developments and horizon scanning Industry responses to Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill The Property Litigation Association has submitted evidence to the Housing, Communities and Local Government Select Committee on the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, concentrating on practical operation and drafting rather than overarching policy. It recognises that a ban on selling new leasehold flats would, in time, bring residential leasehold to a close, yet warns that leasehold remains a valuable framework—particularly for complex and mixed‑use schemes—and that retaining headlease‑level flexibility is vital for investor confidence. The Association considers the Bill a significant step towards a workable commonhold model, proposing mixed‑use...
Rates mitigation scheme for hereditament claimed as leased as a place of worship held invalid ( A& P68 Ltd v City of Bradford MDC) A& P68 Ltd v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council [2026] EWHC 27 ( Admin) What are the practical implications of the case? This ruling aligns with the prevailing stream of authority that reduces the effectiveness of business rates avoidance arrangements in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Rossendale BC v Hurstwood Properties Ltd [2022] AC 690. Additional confirmation can be found in Wigan Council and others v Property Alliance Group Ltd [2025] EWHC 2336 ( Ch) and R (on the application of Emeraldshaw Ltd) v Sheffield Magistrates' Court [2025] EWCA Civ 1601, with the courts acknowledging that Parliament is not generally taken to have intended tax exemption for transactions serving no purpose other than avoiding...
In this issue: Repairing obligations and dilapidations Trespass and adverse possession Service charges Residential tenancies Disputes and remedies Rent and rates Easements and covenants Property disputes in Scotland Additional Property Disputes updates Lex Talk® Property Disputes: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Repairing obligations and dilapidations Building Safety Act—remediation contribution orders—respondents’ appeal dismissed in Vista Tower ( Grey GR Ltd Partnership v Edgewater ( Stevenage)) In Grey GR Ltd Partnership v Edgewater ( Stevenage) [2025] Lexis Citation 276, the Upper Tribunal ( UT) rejected the respondents’ appeal against the First-tier Tribunal’s ( FTT) grant of a remediation contribution order under section 124 of the Building Safety Act 2022, made against 75 respondents. Marcus Birch of BCLP reviews the decision. See News Analysis: Building Safety Act—remediation contribution orders—respondents’ appeal dismissed in Vista Tower. High Court held progressive failure of window seals constituted disrepair ( Better Intelligent Management Ltd v Zaid...
The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets v Various Leaseholders of Brewster House and Malting House [2025] EWCA Civ 1591 What are the practical implications of this case? This important ruling on service charges and lease construction for housing, real estate and local authority practitioners in the context of building safety remediation confirms a clear approach: broad “sweeper” management or safety clauses and wide, catch‑all expenditure wording will not readily be read as passing the cost of remedying inherent, pre‑existing structural faults to leaseholders. The courts will scrutinise context, the way clause lists are structured, and the commercial ramifications, and will require unequivocal wording before concluding that leaseholders accepted a potentially ruinous exposure for structural defect remediation. For Right to Buy leases in particular, the statutory scheme forms part of the relevant background because Parliament has expressly governed...
The FTT decision As noted in a previous Insight, the proprietor of Vista Tower (' Grey') applied for an RCO against the building’s original developer and 95 additional parties who met the definition of ‘associated persons’ due to shared directors during 2017 to 2022. The owner requested an order requiring the respondents to cover both historic and forthcoming costs to rectify fire safety defects, estimated at over £20m. The FTT granted that relief, on a joint and several liability basis, against 75 respondents. The appeal Certain respondents appealed on these grounds: whether the Tribunal can make RCOs rendering multiple respondents jointly and severally liable for the same overall sum, or whether it must make individual orders against each respondent for a specifically identified amount. whether the Tribunal misdirected itself on the “just and equitable” test, given that for many respondents there was no...
Phillips and another v Garraway [2026] EWCA Civ 55 What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling makes plain that would-be tenants who intend to render services in place of rent must settle an agreed value for those services with the proposed landlord if they want the tenancy to attract security of tenure under the HA 1988. Where no figure is put on the services, it is probable that the tenancy can be ended by a notice to quit. Beyond that, the practical consequences of the judgment are likely to be limited. The court recognised that ‘rent’ carries different meanings at common law and across other statutory schemes, so the Court of Appeal’s explanation of ‘rent’ is confined to the particular statutory framework of the HA 1988. Although the tenant relied on the potential for abuse by...
Popular documents
When evaluating a general damages claim, the practitioner ought initially to refer to the Judicial College Guidelines (JCG)...
This Practice Note This Practice Note reviews mechanisms used in settling litigation. A Tomlin order consists of a consent order paired with a schedule. It operates to stay proceedings on terms that have been agreed. The provisions contained in the schedule may remain confidential. This Practice Note describes the scope of confidentiality attaching to the schedule and sets out how it differs from a standard consent order. Sample wording for a Tomlin order is included, alongside links to precedents, as well as guidance on court approval. It also addresses varying, setting aside and enforcing a Tomlin order, including the considerations the court will take into account when handling applications for each. Further guidance is provided on interpreting and applying the relevant provisions of the CPR; however, some courts and divisions impose very specific requirements for both drafting and approval, and for approaching the schedule and confidentiality issues. Accordingly, you must consider the particular rules and court guide provisions in the forum where your claim is proceeding when drawing up the Tomlin order...
Date [ date ] Parties [ name of Landlord ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Landlord) [ name of Tenant ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Tenant) [ [ name of Guarantor ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Guarantor) ] [ [ name of Mortgagee ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Mortgagee) ] Definitions Within this Deed, the terms below shall be interpreted as follows: [ Annual Rent • the annual sum reserved under the Lease; ] [ Insurance Rent • the Tenant’s share of the Landlord’s costs of insuring the Property (as set out in the Lease); ] Lease • the lease of the Property dated [ date ], entered into between (1) [ the Landlord OR [ name ...
I, [ name ], of [ address ], solemnly and sincerely state that: [ Matters to be verified, set out in numbered paragraphs ] I make this solemn statement in good conscience, believing it to be true, and pursuant to the provisions of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835. DECLARED at [ details ] this [ day ] day of [ month and year ] Before me ................................................................................ [ signature of the person before whom the declaration is made ] A [ commissioner for oaths OR [ solicitor OR [ insert other qualification ] ] authorised to administer oaths ]...
Discover more from LexisNexis
