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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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: Repairing obligations and dilapidations Rent and rates Neighbour and party wall disputes Disputes and remedies Residential tenancies Services charges Business tenancies 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 Latest Q& A Repairing obligations and dilapidations Damages under the Defective Premises Act 1972—what’s recoverable? ( Wilson v HB( SWA)) Construction analysis: In the Technology and Construction Court ( TCC), the court removed several categories of claim brought against a developer by former flat leaseholders, in a defects case founded on duties under the Defective Premises Act 1972 and alleged breaches of leasehold covenants. The court firmly concluded that a number of the losses pleaded were too remote, or entirely hypothetical. See the News Analysis: Damages under the Defective Premises Act 1972—what’s recoverable? ( Wilson v HB( SWA)). Upper Tribunal overturns remediation order citing procedural...
In this issue: Repairing obligations and dilapidations Business tenancies Service charges Contractual issues Enforcing security and property insolvency Disputes and remedies Rent and rates 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 Repairing obligations and dilapidations Supreme Court confirms developer’s entitlement to pursue negligence, DPA 1972 and contribution claims for remedial costs against its structural engineer ( URS v BDW). The case of URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd [2025] UKSC 21 is the latest instalment in a sequence of decisions arising from claims by a developer ( BDW) against its structural engineer ( URS) concerning structural defects in two residential developments, where the remedial works were undertaken after it no longer held any...
The Mayor and Commonality and Citizens of The City of London v 48th Street Holding Ltd and another company [2025] EWHC 1130 ( KB) What was the background? The second defendant (‘ POLL’) traded in devising rate mitigation schemes (the RMS) for empty premises for third parties. The first defendant, 48SHL, implemented one such arrangement and relied on it as a defence to a claim for non‑domestic rates. Under the arrangement, once relevant property fell vacant, section 45(1) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 together with the Non‑ Domestic Rating ( Unoccupied Property) ( England) Regulations 2008, SI 2008/386, regs 3 and 4a, operated to confer an exemption from liability for unoccupied rates for three months and, on the expiry of that three‑month period. To facilitate this, 48SHL granted POLL a lease of the premises and, at the same time, served a break notice...
The High Court found on 30 May 2025 that landlord London Trocadero (2015) LLP had charged commission levels, from 2020–25 ,above the norm to its tenant: cinema company Picturehouse Cinemas Ltd. London Trocadero is ultimately owned by billionaire property developer Asif Aziz. At the outset of a March 2025 trial, Picturehouse and its parent Cineworld Cinemas told the court they had leased part of the landmark Trocadero building in the West End. The cinema companies claimed that between 2015–21 the landlord overcharged ‘insurance rent’, the tenant’s contribution towards the building’s insurance premium under the lease. London Trocadero sits within the Criterion Group, which reports a property portfolio worth more than £4bn. According to the judgment, Criterion Capital acted as managing agent within the group and arranged the property insurance for London Trocadero. The judgment records that Criterion Capital placed a block policy with a...
Carvill- Biggs and another v Reading [2025] EWCA Civ 619 What are the practical implications of this case? The scope of an office-holder’s authority to recover ‘any property’ under IA 1986, s 234 plainly embraces real property and any estate or interest subsisting in such property. Upon the appointment of receivers, they are granted broad managerial powers, notably to take possession of and sell the asset for the lender’s benefit to satisfy the secured borrowing. From the time receivers are appointed over mortgaged land—or remain in post following an administration or liquidation—the asset no longer constitutes property ‘which the company is or appears to be entitled’. As a result, that real property cannot ground an application under IA 1986, s 234. The Civil Procedure Rules apply to insolvency matters unless disapplied or inconsistent with the Insolvency ( England and Wales) Rules 2016, SI...
In this issue: Service charges Contractual issues Rent and rates Easements and covenants Property insolvency Trespass and adverse possession 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 Service charges Landlord not entitled to recover insurance rent tied to commission rebates ( London Trocadero (2015) LLP v Picturehouse Cinemas Ltd) In London Trocadero (2015) LLP v Picturehouse Cinemas Ltd [2025] EWHC 1247 ( Ch), the High Court considered disputes over insurance rent payable under two leases. The judge concluded the landlord could not charge insurance rent to reflect commission rebates (the ‘ Landlord’s Commission’) it had obtained from its insurers. By contrast, the landlord was entitled to recover insurance rent in respect of sizeable policy excesses introduced because of fire safety...
URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd [2025] UKSC 21 What are the practical implications of this case? The Supreme Court has delivered a definitive ruling on several legal questions of fundamental significance to the construction sector, particularly in the post- Grenfell landscape where claims for historic defects are widespread. Current and prospective claimants bringing claims in tort, under the DPA 1972, and for contribution arising from defective works will be encouraged by the Court’s clarifications. Notably, the judgment opens the way for negligence claims to recover repair costs incurred when the claimant no longer had any proprietary interest in the property and was under no enforceable liability towards third parties, which is especially pertinent where BSA 2022, s 135(3) has retrospectively revived DPA 1972 claims that were previously time-barred. The Court further confirmed that DPA 1972, s 1 applies to original...
Facts The defendant in the proceedings, Ms Lawrence, entered into a loan agreement with a lender, for whom HNW, the claimant in the matter, acted as the security agent for the lender. The purpose of the loan agreement was to help finance Ms Lawrence’s development of a property. That property was also secured separately by a legal mortgage, operating as continuing security to the lender under the loan terms. Although HNW was not itself a party to the loan agreement, the loan agreement nonetheless contained an express provision said to grant HNW certain third party rights to enforce its terms; namely, that, even though HNW Lending Ltd was not a party to this Loan Agreement, HNW Lending Ltd could take the benefit of and specifically enforce each and every express term of the Loan Agreement, together with any term implied under it pursuant to the...
In this issue: Repairing obligations and dilapidations Easements and covenants Enforcing security and property insolvency Rents and rates Disputes and remedies Neighbour and party wall disputes Residential tenancies Key developments and horizon scanning Additional Property Disputes updates Lex Talk®Property Disputes: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Dates for your diary Latest Q& As Repairing obligations and dilapidations Supreme Court confirms section 135 of the BSA 2022 has retrospective reach for claims tied to DPA 1972, s 1 ( URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd) In URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd [2025] UKSC 21, the Supreme Court rejected all four appeal grounds. It concluded that the retrospective limitation window in section 135(3) of the Building Safety Act 2022 embraces not only claims brought squarely under section 1 of the...
Note: the CPRC no longer distributes the underlying papers alongside the minutes; as a result, no documents explaining the issues considered are supplied with this News Analysis. A copy of the minutes is available here: Minutes of the Civil Procedure Rule Committee. Welcome, apologies and introductory remarks (item 1) The minutes of the 7 March 2025 meeting were formally agreed, albeit subject to a clarificatory amendment to paragraph 3 concerning updates to certain court guides (see News Analysis: Minutes of the CPR Committee meeting—7 March 2025). Two items were noted under the action log, namely: The Ministry of Justice’s ( Mo J) reply to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments ( JCSI) about the expression ‘nominal claimant’ in the Civil Procedure ( Amendment) Rules 2025, SI 2025/106 was submitted to, and accepted by, the JCSI. The JCSI determined the phrase has a technical legal...
You can access the minutes here: Online Procedure Rule Committee minutes for the meeting on 14 April 2025. Welcome, apologies and introductory remarks (item 1) The minutes of the 17 March 2025 meeting were approved subject to amendments, as detailed in News Analysis: Minutes of the Online Procedure Rule Committee meeting—17 March 2025. Ministry of Justice policy update (item 2) The OPRC received a briefing from the Ministry of Justice ( Mo J) on the spending review, confirming funding for the Digital Justice System Private Family Law ( PFL) programme for this year. It was recorded that Antonia Romeo, the departing Permanent Secretary, will be replaced on an interim basis by Amy Rees. Ministerial portfolios were also reallocated, with oversight of family justice shifting from Lord Ponsonby to Minister Sackman. The Master of the Rolls ( MR) reported on his recent visit to Bromley County Court with...
A copy of the minutes can be viewed here: the Minutes of the Online Procedure Rule Committee. Welcome, apologies and introductory remarks (item 1) The minutes from the 10 February meeting were reviewed and received formal approval. Statutory instrument (item 2) Members recorded that the statutory instrument ( SI) conferring rule-making powers on the OPRC was debated on 17 March 2025. They observed that, if approved, the OPRC could begin making rules after the parliamentary process was completed in due course. After the meeting, the Online Procedure Rules ( Specified Proceedings) Regulations 2025, SI 2025/536, were made and took effect on 30 April 2025. It was further noted that the Renters’ Rights Bill might face a possible delay in its passage. The legislation is expected to raise demand across the courts and tribunals system, and continued digitalisation is vital to help the courts...
In this issue: Electronic communications Key developments and horizon scanning Enforcing security and property insolvency Trespass and adverse possession Neighbour and party wall disputes Disputes and remedies 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 Electronic communications DSIT consults on draft regulations to implement sections 61–64 of PSTIA 2022 DSIT has opened a technical consultation on proposed secondary legislation to bring sections 61–64 of the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022 ( PSTIA 2022) into effect. The draft instruments would revise Part 2 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 ( LTA 1954) in England and Wales, and also amend the Business Tenancies ( Northern Ireland) Order 1996, SI 1996/725. The objective is to recast the financial basis of lease...
Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council and another v Loveridge and others [2025] EWHC 738 ( KB) What are the practical implications of this case? This judgment is important for practitioners as it clarifies the correct approach to two novel questions arising after Wolverhampton: the court’s power when renewing a traveller injunction targeted at newcomer persons unknown, as distinct from orders against identified defendants and the broader class of persons unknown; and how the Wolverhampton guidance for making traveller injunctions interfaces with the precautionary relief test for persons unknown in Vastint [2019] 4 WLR 2. The renewal application was determined de novo. The court confirmed that the multifactorial approach in Vastint (see [31]) has not been disapproved by Wolverhampton and was applied in this case (at [83]). The decision also serves as a reminder of the importance of full and frank disclosure on without notice...
In this issue: Key developments and horizon scanning Trespass and adverse possession Enforcing security and property insolvency Disputes and remedies Electronic Communications Easements and covenants Neighbours and party wall disputes Service charges 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 Renters’ Rights Bill The Renters’ Rights Bill would reform the legal framework for rented housing, including scrapping fixed-term assured tenancies and assured shorthold tenancies; creating duties for landlords and related parties regarding rented properties and temporary or supported accommodation; and for associated and connected matters across the sector. The Bill progressed to House of Lords committee stage (day four) on 6 May 2025. See: LNB News...
In this issue: Key developments and horizon scanning Residential tenancies Enforcing security and property insolvency Neighbour and party wall disputes Electronic communications Contractual issues Disputes and remedies Additional Property Disputes updates Lex Talk®Property Disputes: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly alerts Dates for your diary Trackers Latest Q& As Key developments and horizon scanning Renters’ Rights Bill The Renters’ Rights Bill sets out reforms to the legal framework for rented homes, including ending fixed‑term assured tenancies and assured shorthold tenancies, introducing duties on landlords and others in relation to rented, temporary and supported accommodation, and associated measures. The Bill progressed to House of Lords committee stage (day 3) on 28 April 2025. See: LNB News 12/09/2024. The impact of the Terrorism ( Protection of Premises) Act 2025 on the property...
Telecommunications Code—redevelopment ( Vodafone v Icon & AP Wireless) Vodafone Ltd v (1) Icon Tower Infrastructure Ltd (2) AP Wireless II ( UK) Ltd [2025] UKUT 00058 ( LC) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling acts as a useful reminder that, under the Code—unlike the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 ( LTA 1954)—works undertaken beyond the demise on neighbouring land can be considered when opposing renewal on redevelopment grounds. Although the outcome on whether the site provider could rely on historic works is hardly surprising, the UT provided guidance on several elements of the operation of ground 31(4)(c): the UT confirmed that redevelopment works must be undertaken within a reasonable period after the tenancy comes to an end......
White v Alder [2025] EWCA Civ 392 (7 April 2025) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling is a definitive and unequivocal statement from the Court of Appeal clarifying the nature and legal consequences of boundary demarcation agreements. Delivering the principal judgment, Asplin LJ held that such an agreement operates with proprietary effect and, as a result, binds successors in title regardless of any knowledge they may or may not have. To most property practitioners, the outcome will seem unsurprising. It aligns with the familiar approach articulated by Megarry J in Neilson v Poole (1969) 20 P& CR 909 (not reported by Lexis Nexis®UK), the leading authority on boundary agreements since 1969. Even so, although Megarry J’s reasoning had been affirmed by the Court of Appeal on a number of occasions, in the absence of a clear, binding authority squarely...
In this issue: Enforcing security and property insolvency Forfeiture Easements and covenants Disputes and remedies Residential tenancies No Weekly Highlights on 24 April 2025 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 Enforcing security and property insolvency The treatment of principal secured debt under a mental health crisis moratorium ( Seculink Ltd v Forbes) In Seculink Ltd v Forbes [2025] EWHC 524 ( Ch), the High Court explained how the principal amount of a secured debt is dealt with during a mental health crisis moratorium ( MHCM) under the Debt Respite Scheme ( Breathing Space Moratorium and Mental Health Crisis Moratorium) ( England and Wales) Regulations 2020, SI 2020/1311. The court confirmed that the...
Seculink Ltd v Forbes [2025] EWHC 524 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? This judgment bolsters the position of secured creditors looking to enforce a debtor’s liability for the principal on a secured borrowing that has been called in, confirming that the principal itself falls outside an MHCM. As that principal is not a ‘qualifying debt’ under the Regulations, interest continues to accrue during the MHCM and remains recoverable by the creditor. The court also confirmed it has jurisdiction to decide whether a liability owed by a debtor subject to an MHCM is a ‘moratorium debt’ and therefore benefits from the MHCM. This gives creditors the ability to challenge, in court, the inclusion of their debts within an MHCM rather than being limited to the review procedure provided by the...
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
