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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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
Fosse Urban Projects Ltd v Whyte and another [2023] UKUT 286 ( LC) A recent Upper Tribunal ruling in Fosse Urban Projects Ltd v Whyte and another warns developers to resolve restrictive covenants before breaking ground. The outcome signals a shift from a well-known earlier case and shows the Tribunal is unlikely to use its discretion to lift or alter a covenant to endorse a scheme where a developer has intentionally and knowingly breached it purely for commercial motives... Background Fosse Urban Projects Ltd (the developer) secured planning permission in July 2021 to construct a dwelling on land burdened by a covenant limiting its use to “garden land” serving an “adjoining property”. The developer later applied to the Upper Tribunal in October 2022 under section 84(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925, which empowers the Tribunal, in defined...
In this issue Lease covenants and obligations Contractual issues Trespass and adverse possession Disputes and remedies Residential tenancies Property disputes in Scotland Lex Talk®Property Disputes: a Lexis®Nexis community Additional Property disputes updates Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Latest Q& As Lease covenants and obligations Landlord’s reasons for withholding consent to alterations were self-standing and reasonable ( Messenex Property Investment Ltd v Lanark Square Ltd) In Messenex Property Investment Ltd v Lanark Square Ltd [2024] All ER ( D) 122 ( Jan), [2024] EWHC 89 ( Ch), the Chancery Division refused the tenant’s request for a declaration that its lease obligation to obtain the landlord’s consent to alterations to the demised premises did not stop it from undertaking two projects at a formerly...
In this issue: Key developments and horizon scanning Residential tenancies Service charges Neighbour and party wall disputes Disputes and remedies Easements and covenants Property disputes in Scotland Lex Talk®Property Disputes: a Lexis®Nexis community Additional Property disputes updates Daily and weekly news alerts Dates for your diary Trackers Latest Q& As Key developments and horizon scanning DLUHC publishes Building Safety Levy consultation updates The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has issued its response to the consultation seeking input on how the Building Safety Levy should be designed and delivered. A further technical consultation has also been launched, concentrating on the approach to calculating the levy, mechanisms for collection, the handling of disputes and appeals, and any additional exclusions. This closes on 20 February 2024. See LNB News 24/01/2024 16. RICS publishes response to DLUHC...
In this issue: Repairing duties and dilapidations Neighbour and party wall disagreements Easements and covenants Disputes and remedies Lex Talk®Property Disputes: a Lexis®Nexis community Further property dispute updates Daily and weekly news alerts New and refreshed content Dates for your diary Trackers Latest Q& As Repairing obligations and dilapidations Establishing principal accountable person responsible for higher-risk buildings ( Octagon Overseas Ltd v Unsdorfer) In Octagon Overseas Ltd v Unsdorfer [2024] All ER ( D) 62 ( Jan), [2023] Lexis Citation 2492, the First-tier Tribunal ( Property Chamber) (the FTT) examined the applicant landlords’ application under section 75 of the Building Safety Act 2022 ( BSA 2022) to determine the principal accountable person ( AP) as defined by BSA 2022, s 72, concerning five higher-risk buildings (the buildings) within the Canary Riverside Estate (the Estate). The first respondent ( SU) was the tribunal-appointed manager of the Estate under section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 ( LTA...
The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ( DLUHC) has issued guidance clarifying the Building Safety Fund ( BSF) procedure. This guidance outlines the following......
Could AI tools be used to draft witness statements? The rule that statements must be recorded in a witness’s 'own words' makes it improbable that a witness could simply feed prompts into an AI platform and present the resulting text as their personal wording. Generative AI, by its essence, draws on innumerable bodies of writing, fusing and compressing them into prose that belongs to no single author. The product of such systems is, by design, not the voice of any particular user. In addition, PD 57AC requires (i) transparency about how the statement was put together and (ii) that it captures the witness’s own knowledge, raising doubts about how a court would view a statement created with AI support. Once drafting is automated, an intermediary stands between the witness and the text, severing the direct link from first-hand recollection to the eventual draft......
In this issue: Contractual issues Enfranchisement and right to manage Disputes and remedies Service charges Enforcing security and property insolvency Residential tenancies Property disputes in Scotland Lex Talk®Property Disputes: a Lexis®Nexis community Additional Property disputes updates Daily and weekly news alerts Dates for your diary Latest Q& A Contractual issues Valid exercise of three options and specific performance of resulting sale contracts ( IAA Vehicle Services Ltd v HBC Ltd) In IAA Vehicle Services Ltd v HBC Ltd [2024] All ER ( D) 15 ( Jan); [2024] EWHC 1 ( Ch), the Chancery Division granted the claimant’s request for a declaration that three options had been effectively exercised and were binding on the defendant, and ordered specific performance of the ensuing sale contracts. The court determined, among other matters, that the...
Barclays Bank UK plc v Terry [2023] EWHC 2726 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling illustrates how the court approaches rectification of the register where a mistake stems from a unilateral error by one party. It also matters more broadly, as the framework for addressing mistakes continues to have general reach, and the judgment touches on procedural aspects concerning witness statements and representative actions that practitioners will find of enduring relevance. What was the background? As part of a programme to streamline its mortgage portfolio, Barclays Bank plc undertook a long-term IT initiative to locate mortgages that had been redeemed but not formally discharged. The exercise identified over 41,000 mortgages. After review, the bank marked them as discharged on its system and sent automated applications to the Land Registry. Only once approximately 25,900 charges had been removed did the bank...
The ‘qualifying lease’ The term ‘qualifying lease’ was introduced by BSA 2022, s 119. Its importance lies in the fact that BSA 2022, Sch 8 brings in a series of restrictions on tenants’ liability to pay service charge. Put plainly (while the Act should always be consulted for its exact wording), these restrictions cover scenarios where the landlord or an associate is responsible for the relevant defect, where the landlord meets the ‘contribution condition’ (in essence, possesses a certain level of worth in relation to the number of properties owned), where the lease is under a particular value, where the defect relates to cladding, and so forth. Other than the first of these—defects for which a landlord or associate is responsible—each restriction applies solely to qualifying leases. Accordingly, holding a qualifying lease can be a valuable benefit. When, then, does a lease qualify? The answer is set out in...
Braganza v the Riverside Group Ltd [2023] UKUT 243 ( LC) What are the practical implications of this case? B’s service charge liability was framed as a ‘ Specified Proportion’ of the overall expenditure. The drafting clearly contemplated a percentage, not a monetary amount. Although the lease conferred on the landlord’s surveyor the ability to increase or reduce that figure where necessary or equitable, the document was plainly prepared on the footing that this Specified Proportion would be an initial fixed percentage. However, something appears to have gone astray at completion: in the Particulars the Specified Proportion was entered as a fixed monthly sum instead. While this did not alter the outcome of the case, it did require the landlord’s surveyor to determine a fresh Specified Proportion each year. This feature therefore highlights how vigilant practitioners must be when filling in blanks on...
Spencer v Spencer [2023] EWHC 2050 ( Ch) On 9 August 2023, Rajah J handed down judgment in Spencer v Spencer [2023] EWHC 2050 ( Ch), a farming proprietary estoppel dispute. Stephen Jourdan KC and Caroline Shea KC represented the claimant and defendants, respectively. Stephen was leading Christopher Jones, instructed by Tim Russ of Roythornes, while Caroline led Sarah Haren KC, instructed by Russell Reeves of Thrings. The claimant, Michael Spencer, asserted that his late father had assured him he would succeed to the freehold land making up the farm on his father’s death—about 405 acres—and that he had acted in reliance on those assurances so that it would be inequitable for his father to depart from them. Up until shortly before he died, his father’s wills had left the land to Michael. However, a new will executed shortly before death left the land to trustees on a...
Introduction In recent months, many commentators have examined the Court of Appeal’s ruling in Pretoria Energy Company ( Chittering) Ltd v Blankney Estates Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 482. Much of that analysis has focussed on whether, on the particular facts, signed Heads of Terms resulted in a binding agreement for the creation or other disposition of an interest in land (here, the grant of a lease) within section 2(1) of the Law of Property ( Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. This article, however, approaches the decision in terms of its possible ramifications for the procedure to contract out of LTA 1954, Pt II. In particular, remarks by Lord Justice Lewison appear to speak directly to the timing of that process and when the landlord and any guarantor should undertake it. Background facts The discussions between the appellant ( Pretoria) and the respondent ( Blankney) concerned a...
Williams and another (as the Joint Administrators of Signature Living Residential Ltd) v Alter Domus Trustees ( UK) Ltd (formerly Cortland Trustees Ltd) [2023] EWHC 1820 ( Ch), [2023] All ER ( D) 94 ( Jul) What are the practical implications of this case? This decision offers a clear demonstration of how a purchaser’s equitable lien over property can sit alongside, and potentially compete with, other forms of security. The court explores key aspects of equitable liens in the setting of buyers of off-plan apartments, including whether each purchaser’s lien is geographically confined to the specific footprint of the relevant flat. These points are worked through by reference to the different purchasers involved, providing practical guidance on scope and priority issues. The judgment also examines, from para 38, what counts as a ‘signature’ for the purposes of LP( MP) A 1989, s 2. Recent...
What are the main provisions of the Bill? The Bill, laid before the House of Commons on 17 May 2023, contains a substantial suite of reforms. The principal measures are: Abolishing section 21 notices and ending assured shorthold tenancies: Section 21 notices will be removed, so in future every claim for possession must rely on grounds under section 8 of the Housing Act 1988 ( HA 1988). With HA 1988, s 21 falling away, assured shorthold tenancies ( ASTs) will also cease (subject to any transitional arrangements), meaning all lettings will be assured tenancies. Tenancy deposit protection, a cornerstone of the present AST framework, will remain in force; where a landlord fails to meet the deposit requirements, service of a valid section 8 notice will be barred for almost all grounds. Ending fixed-term tenancies: Fixed terms will be prohibited, with all tenancies becoming periodic. Each period must be...
Lexham Securities Ltd and another v Earlsfort Capital Partners Ltd and others [2023] EWHC 909 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? This decision confirms that a mortgagor may still exercise the equity of redemption even after a receiver has concluded a contract on their behalf. Historically, it has been accepted that the equity of redemption is, for a period, put on hold between the making of a sale contract by the mortgagee and the subsequent completion of that contract (see Property and Bloodstock Ltd v Emerton [1968] Ch. 94). The situation is, in practice, different where the sale contract is made by a receiver. Although the receiver is appointed by the mortgagee, the receiver acts as the owner/mortgagor’s agent, not the mortgagee’s. That almost invariably follows from the provisions of the original loan agreement; agreed at the outset, at a time when the...
Bastholm and others v Peveril Securities ( Dalton Park Retail) Ltd and others [2023] EWHC 438 ( Ch) Background The dispute concerned a demand for overage under a Payment Deed connected to the creation of a large designer outlet and retail centre at Dalton Park, County Durham. The Deed identified the ‘ Seller’ as five named individuals and set out a valuation process by expert determination, to be initiated by an application to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors ( RICS). In 2014, those five applied to RICS seeking the appointment of an expert to assess the value of development said to have occurred in 2002. By that time, one of the five had been adjudged bankrupt and later discharged, and his Trustee in Bankruptcy was not included in the approach to RICS. The first defendant, who owned the relevant land, contended that the...
Hambling and another v Wakerly and another [2023] EWHC 343 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? Despite the atypical and unconventional phrasing of the right of way in this dispute, the ruling remains of real guidance. It demonstrates how limited a role on-the-ground and locational realities may ultimately play in construing an easement where, on a strictly textual reading, the clause is considered adequately precise and definitive, so that practicality yields to the clarity of the written grant, as the text requires. What are the principles involved? The settled approach to interpreting a grant of an express easement requires the language to be evaluated against the matrix of facts and circumstances known, or taken to be known, to the original parties at the date of creation. Those surrounding matters may encompass the physical state and configuration of the land when the grant was made, and the...
Power and another v Shah [2023] EWCA Civ 239 What are the practical implications of this case? PWA 1996 sets out a statutory framework permitting activity in the vicinity of, or upon, boundary lines. Through its protections, a Building Owner may carry out operations that would, but for the Act, amount to trespass or a private nuisance. An Adjoining Owner is entitled to compensation for any works duly authorised. What works are permitted, and the level of compensation due, are determined by surveyors and recorded in an Award. To rely on PWA 1996, the Building Owner must serve notice. If written agreement to the proposals is not provided, a dispute is treated as having arisen. That dispute then engages the Award process. The scope of PWA 1996 is confined. An Adjoining Owner has no power to set the mechanism in motion alone. However...
Fearn v The Trustees of the Tate Gallery [2023] UKSC 4 What are the practical implications of this case? The Supreme Court has confirmed that visual intrusion can constitute a nuisance, though simple overlooking on its own does not. While eye-catching, the ruling is unlikely to trigger a deluge of neighbour disputes about being watched. The court contemplated that only a marked and sustained degree of visual interference would cross the threshold. As Leggatt LJ explained at [103], instances where land is put to an unusual use that causes visual intrusion of sufficient duration and intensity to found a nuisance claim are expected to be uncommon. It also remains the law that merely putting up a building or structure that looks over another parcel of land, without more, does not amount to a nuisance. Regarding grievances from occupants of highly glazed, tall...
Leon v Kensington Mortgage Company Ltd [2023] EWHC 121 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? This decision offers reassurance to those who guarantee corporate borrowings. The court held that when an individual acts as surety for a company and elects to discharge the debt, the subsequent dissolution of that company does not bar the surety from stepping into the benefit of any security that was taken for the debt. Had the court ruled the opposite—that dissolution deprives the surety of access to the security—it would have placed sureties in an invidious position: anyone guaranteeing a company’s obligations would run a material risk that, if the company were later dissolved, the surety could be compelled to satisfy the liability yet be unable to recoup their outlay even where the company’s indebtedness had been secured against property. Such a result could have had...
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
