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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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: Neighbour and party wall disputes Residential tenancies Service charges Key developments and horizon scanning Repairing obligations and dilapidations 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 Trackers Latest Q& A Neighbour and party wall disputes Boundary demarcation agreements bind successors in title ( White v Alder) In White v Alder [2025] EWCA Civ 392, the Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, which asked whether a boundary agreement obliges successors in title, and if such obligation depends on their awareness of it. The court ruled that boundary demarcation agreements do bind successors in title, regardless of any lack of knowledge. Such an agreement fixes the limits of the legal estates granted in the...
In this issue: Enforcing security and property insolvency Lease covenants and obligations Repairing obligations and dilapidations Trespass and adverse possession Rent and rates Disputes and remedies Service charges Additional Property Disputes updates Lex Talk®Property Disputes: a Lexis®Nexis community New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Latest Q& As Enforcing security and property insolvency LPA 1925 receiver appointment is personal; employer not vicariously liable ( Yerbury v Azets Holdings Ltd) In Yerbury v Azets Holdings Ltd [2025] EWHC 757 ( KB), the King’s Bench Division dismissed an appeal and upheld a Master’s order striking out a vicarious liability claim against Azets Holdings Ltd ( AHL), successor to the receivers’ former employer. A company, Bethel, borrowed from Amicus to purchase a property, then defaulted; receivers were appointed and the asset sold for less than a £5m valuation. The appellant proceeded as assignee via an assignment from Bethel’s liquidator. The Master decided the claim was directed at the wrong party— AHL...
381 Southwark Park Road RTM Company Ltd and others v Click St Andrews Ltd ( In Liquidation) and another [2024] EWHC 3569 ( TCC) What are the practical implications of this case? BLOs and Information Orders are among the most potent remedies introduced by the BSA 2022 to hold culpable contractors and developers to account and to spare claimants Pyrrhic wins against judgment‑proof defendants. Because they can pierce the corporate veil of wealthier parent entities, these orders herald a retreat from elaborate corporate architectures that silo substantial assets from creditors, and from the tactical use of insolvency to thwart claims (eg, where any realistic recovery would be negligible). Although leaseholders are likely to welcome this outcome, it represents a significant development in company law and the long‑standing doctrine that companies are generally treated as distinct legal persons. If that no longer holds,...
In this issue: Key developments and horizon scanning Repairing obligations and dilapidations Enfranchisement and right to manage Disputes and remedies Enforcing security and property insolvency Additional Property Disputes updates Lex Talk®Property Disputes: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for diary Trackers Latest Q& As Key developments and horizon scanning Spring Statement 2025— Key Construction and Planning announcements: On 26 March 2025, the Chancellor of Exchequer, the RT Hon Rachel Reeves MP, set out a series of steps affecting Planning and Construction, including updates concerning the Building Safety Levy. See: LNB News 26/03/2025 50. Repairing obligations and dilapidations No costs order where improvement notice was quashed ( Manaquel Company Ltd v Lambeth London Borough Council): In Manaquel Company v Lambeth London Borough Council [2025] UKUT 97 ( LC), the Upper...
What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling is noteworthy as there have been few decisions addressing how to interpret the statutory test for a ‘self-contained part of building’ in CLRA 2002, s 72(3)–(4) where a right to manage claim is pursued. It clarifies the meaning of a ‘vertical division’ within a building, a point that matters particularly where a portion shares undivided space with the remainder of the premises, for example a car park, and thus whether a claim brought under the legislation can succeed. Its importance extends further: the statutory wording mirrors that in section 3(2) of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 and section 117(5) of the Building Safety Act 2022. As a result, the decision has broader consequences for collective enfranchisement and building safety. What was the background? The Plaza Boulevard cases The Courtyard, The Studios and The Terrace form parts of the...
Note: The CPRC has ceased sharing the supporting papers alongside the minutes, therefore no explanatory documents on the topics covered accompany this News Analysis. A copy of the minutes can be accessed here: Minutes of the Civil Procedure Rule Committee. Welcome, action log and matters arising (item 1) The minutes from the 6 December 2024 meeting were approved by the Committee, and the action log duly recorded—see News Analysis: Minutes of the CPR Committee meeting—6 December 2024. The Chair duly noted that: the CPRC’s Annual Report 2023–2024 was placed online ahead of the Christmas recess, with hard copies supplied to members as well the Service Sub- Committee’s programme is advancing satisfactorily, and a report on the E-signature work is expected to be provided at the next meeting the E- Working pilot CPR Practice Direction ( PD) 51O ends on 1 November 2025 and is...
In this issue: Key developments and horizon scanning Lease covenants and obligations Forfeiture Trespass and adverse possession Residential tenancies 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 Dates for your diary Trackers Latest Q& As Key developments and horizon scanning Judicial review of LFRA 2024 to proceed ( R (on the application of John Lyons Charity) v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government) In R (on the application of John Lyons Charity) v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2025] EWHC 543 ( Admin), the High Court permitted a judicial review application to proceed concerning particular parts of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 ( LFRA 2024) that set the...
What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling underscores how stringent the court’s scrutiny will be when a claimant pursues a contra mundum injunction against unknown future wrongdoers. Nicklin J’s treatment makes clear that a sweeping, generic form of relief is impermissible; the onus rests squarely on the claimant to justify, item by item, every restriction sought. The court will, moreover, be vigilant to calibrate the rival considerations: on the one hand, the claimant’s wish to vindicate private law rights; on the other, the position of those who are the subject of the proposed order, especially where they are engaged in protected protest. As foreshadowed by the Supreme Court in admitting the possibility of newcomer injunctions, Nicklin J has taken steps to sharpen the guidance for judges at first instance on the proper exercise of that...
In this issue: Trespass and adverse possession Business tenancies Disputes and remedies Contractual issues Key developments and horizon scanning Repairing obligations and dilapidations Residential tenancies Property disputes in Scotland Additional Property Disputes updates Lex Talk®Property Disputes: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Dates for your diary Trackers Trespass and adverse possession Trespass is concerned with interference with possession of land, not ownership ( Director of Public Prosecutions v Cannon; Director of Public Prosecutions v Juniper) In Director of Public Prosecutions v Cannon; Director of Public Prosecutions v Juniper [2025] EWHC 520 ( Admin), the Court of Appeal allowed the Director of Public Prosecutions’ appeals, holding the district judge had erred in law by deciding the prosecution failed to prove the trespass element in counts of aggravated trespass contrary to section 68 of the...
MVL Properties (2017) Ltd v The Leadmill Ltd [2025] EWHC 349 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? Hugely significant consequences flow from this decision. The tenant accepted that, at the end of the current tenancy, the landlord could operate the same kind of business as the tenant; nevertheless it said the landlord was unlawfully depriving it of possession, contrary to Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the ECHR ( A1P1), on the basis that the landlord was obtaining the tenant’s goodwill without adequate compensation. Had the High Court found a breach of A1P1 arising from the operation of ground (g) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 in this claim, the court would then have been required to consider whether ground (g) itself could be read compatibly (in a new way) via section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 ( HRA...
Note: the CPRC has ceased distributing the underlying papers with the minutes; consequently, no background documents explaining the issues are supplied with this News Analysis. A copy of the minutes is available here: Minutes of the Civil Procedure Committee. Welcome, action log and matters arising (item 1) The minutes of the meeting on 1 November were approved—see News Analysis: Minutes of the CPR Committee meeting—1 November 2024. The following items were considered: Domestic Abuse Protection Orders ( DAPO) pilot—the pilot CPR PD 51ZF took effect on 27 November 2024. The Chair stressed the value of cross-jurisdiction collaboration and confirmed out-of-committee approval of the judicial working group’s template orders. CPR PD 83 Possession Enforcement reforms—the significant effort on the reforms, and the retitling of a prescribed form by removing ‘ A’ from PF92A, were acknowledged. The recommended changes were duly approved. CPR 52...
In this issue: Disputes and remedies Electronic communications Enfranchisement and right to manage Key developments and horizon scanning Forfeiture Neighbour and party wall disputes Repairing obligations and dilapidations Agricultural tenancies 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 Unsuccessful appeal against financial penalty for failure to belong to approved lettings agency redress scheme ( Kelliher v Colchester City Council) In Kelliher v Colchester City Council [2025] UKFTT 266 ( GRC), the First-tier Tribunal considered an appeal against a £5,000 penalty issued by the local authority for not belonging to an approved redress scheme, as mandated by the Redress Schemes for Lettings Agency Work and Property Management Work (...
AP Wireless v On Tower UK Ltd [2024] UKUT 00429 ( LC) What are the practical implications of this case? This decision clarifies that an assignee of an electronic communications agreement entered into by licence before 28 December 2017 will take the benefit of the Code rights granted by that arrangement, yet will not, merely by completing an assignment, become a contracting party. The rationale is that, although the benefit transfers on assignment, the corresponding burden under the agreement does not automatically move with it. To attain party status, the assignee must effectively step into the assignor’s position for all purposes, in all respects, acquiring every advantage under the agreement while also assuming every burden and obligation. In practice, this requires the assignee to covenant with either the assignor or the Site Provider to perform, and to be bound by, the...
In this issue: Trespass and adverse possession Residential tenancies Business tenancies Electronic communications Repairing obligations and dilapidations Contractual issues Service charges 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 Trackers Latest Q& As Trespass and adverse possession Supreme Court rules that any ten-year span of reasonable belief in ownership suffices for registration under the LRA 2002 ( Brown v Ridley) In Brown v Ridley [2025] UKSC 7, the Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal, concluding that, when correctly interpreted, paragraph 5(4)(c) of Schedule 6 to the Land Registration Act 2002 enables adverse possession to be established by relying on any ten-year period during which the applicant reasonably believed themselves to be the owner, and not...
Brown v Ridley [2025] UKSC 7 Background This case concerns adverse possession. Mr Brown holds the registered title to a parcel of land situated to the west of the Promenade in Consett, County Durham, acquired in September 2002 (the ' Brown land'). Mr and Mrs Ridley are the registered proprietors of an adjoining plot of land, purchased in July 2004 (' Valley View'). An earlier proprietor of Valley View put up a fence and planted a hedge along a line they thought marked the boundary between the Brown land and Valley View; the parties now accept that this line in fact enclosed a portion of the registered Brown land as registered, referred to as the 'disputed land'. The Ridleys initially treated the disputed land as part of their garden and later incorporated it into the footprint of a new dwelling (into which they...
In this issue: Residential tenancies Enforcing security and property insolvency Trespass and adverse possession Disputes and remedies Repairing obligations and dilapidations 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 Residential tenancies Landlord and tenant, notices, service, deeming clauses ( Khan v D’ Aubigny) In Khan v D’ Aubigny ( National Residential Landlords Association intervening) [2025] EWCA Civ 11, the Court of Appeal handed down a timely, landlord-friendly ruling that clarifies: (i) whether section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 governs service of certain tenancy papers required by statute, (ii) how lease-based deemed service provisions apply to those documents, and (iii) the continuing force of the common law presumption for postal service. Commentary by Tom Morris, barrister at Landmark Chambers, who acted for the National Residential Landlords Association on the appeal. See News Analysis: Landlord and tenant, notices, service, deeming...
Grey GR Ltd Partnership v Edgewater ( Stevenage) and others CAM/26UH/ HYI/2023/0003 Background Vista Tower in Stevenage became the focus of the government’s inaugural successful application for a remedial order against a building owner under BSA 2022, s 123. During those proceedings, the owner (‘ Grey’) sought a remediation contribution order ( RCO) targeting the original developer and a further 95 respondents treated as ‘associated persons’ owing to common directorships within the relevant 2017–2022 period. Grey requested that the respondents cover both historic and prospective expenditure to rectify fire safety defects, assessed at over £20 million. The decision The dispute presented five key questions: the proper interpretation of ‘defect’ under BSA 2022, s 120(2) the requisite threshold for a ‘building safety risk’ under BSA 2022, s 120(5) whether an order should issue to a well-resourced applicant who knew of the fire safety issues on...
In this issue: Disputes and remedies Key developments and horizon scanning Enfranchisement and right to manage Repairing obligations and dilapidations Electronic communications Enforcing security and property insolvency 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 180th Practice Direction update—in force 13 February 2025 Effective 13 February 2025, the 180th Practice Direction update revises the Damages Claims Pilot ( CPR PD 51ZB) and the Online Civil Money Claims Pilot ( CPR PD 51R). The updated CPR PD 51ZB empowers HMCTS legal advisers to consider and determine digital applications made via the DCP where all parties are legally represented, aligning the DCP with the OCMC for digital steps before a direction order. The CPR PD 51R...
In this issue: Repairing obligations and dilapidations Neighbour and party wall disputes Contractual issues Service charges Forfeiture Disputes and remedies Additional Property Disputes updates Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Latest Q& As Repairing obligations and dilapidations High Court identifies a ‘building safety risk’ that may lead to a ‘building liability order’ under the Building Safety Act 2022 and allows the RTM company to recover damages for leaseholders (381 Southwark Park Road RTM & Various Leaseholders v Click St Andrews) This represents the first High Court ruling that a developer’s defective works amounted to a ‘relevant liability’ arising from a ‘building safety risk’ under section 130(3)(b) of the Building Safety Act 2022. The decision enables the claimant right to manage company ( RTM Co) to pursue, at a...
In this issue: Electronic communications Key developments and horizon scanning Residential tenancies Disputes and remedies Lease covenants and obligations Repairing obligations and dilapidations Rent and rates Lex Talk®Property Disputes: a Lexis®Nexis community Additional Property Disputes updates Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Latest Q& As Electronic communications Identifying the correct operator for terminating Electronic Communication Code agreements Landowners should take particular care to identify the correct operator when seeking to end agreements concerning electronic communications apparatus under the Electronic Communications Code (the Code). The Upper Tribunal ( UT) has ruled, in a decision covering Code wayleaves and licences made before 28 December 2017, that an assignment does not necessarily change who is the relevant operator for a part 5 termination: if the original operator still bears primary responsibility for the agreement’s obligations, it may remain the relevant operator. See News Analysis: Identifying the correct operator for terminating Electronic Communication Code...
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
