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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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
Vistry Homes Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Levelling Up, and Communities and others; Fairfax Acquisitions Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Levelling Up, and Communities and others [2024] EWHC 2088 ( Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? A core tenet of planning law is separating the issue of whether a matter counts as a material consideration from the weight it should carry in the determination. Equally, distinguishing the meaning of planning policy from the subsequent exercise of applying that policy to a proposal. The first issues are matters of law. The second are matters of planning judgement for the local planning authority or Secretary of State. So long as all material considerations are taken into account and policies are interpreted correctly, it is for the decision-maker to attach whatever weight he or she considers...
In this issue: Key developments and horizon scanning Statutory compliance Transferring property Property development Environment, energy and buildings Property taxes Property in Scotland Additional property updates this week Daily and weekly news alerts Trackers New Q& As Key developments and horizon scanning Renters’ Rights Bill introduced to Parliament The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government ( MHCLG) confirms the Renters’ Rights Bill has been introduced to Parliament (see Trackers section below). The legislation would outlaw Section 21 ‘no-fault’ evictions for both new and existing tenancies, giving renters confidence to challenge poor practice without risking retaliatory eviction. Landlords would need to show a legitimate ground to end a tenancy early, enhancing renters’ protection and stability. Further changes include applying Awaab’s Law to the private rented sector so renters in England can tackle dangerous...
Flood Re Flood Re, the state-supported reinsurance initiative enabling insurers to supply reasonably priced home insurance policies to policyholders residing in areas at a high risk of flooding, said a study it asked the Town and Country Planning Association ( TCPA) to carry out uncovered weaknesses in the planning regime in place for delivering flood-resilient new homes across Britain. The evidence informing planning choices on flood risk is frequently out of date and hard to obtain for many, among several other problems which, Flood Re said, are eroding the insurance industry's confidence in the planning framework and its capacity to offer flood cover. Dermot Kehoe, Flood Re's director of communications and transition, said it is 'vital' that new properties constructed in England are not exposed to flooding at all. ' Householders want to feel safe in their home and be assured that it will be......
Habitats Regulations can require appropriate assessment at discharge of conditions stage ( CG Fry & Son v SSLUHC) CG Fry & Son Ltd v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and another ( Home Builders Federation and another intervening) [2024] EWCA Civ 730 What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling clarifies that an appropriate assessment may still be demanded when the authority reaches the ultimate step in a sequence that permits development to continue. Where the earlier consent is an outline permission, that assessment can instead be undertaken later, at reserved matters stage or on the discharge of conditions. This is especially pertinent to the issues in the judgment because Natural England’s 2020 advice on nutrient neutrality post-dates a significant number of subsequent-stage applications. Nonetheless, if a later application were refused owing to appropriate assessment...
In this issue: Residential property HM Land Registry updates Practice Guide 11 and form CNG Leasing property Property development Insurance Property taxes Property in Scotland Lex Talk®Property: a Lexis®Nexis community Additional property updates this week Daily and weekly news alerts Trackers Residential property No rent repayment order where sub-tenancies took effect as assignment In Kumar v Kolev [2024] UKUT 255 ( LC), [2024] All ER ( D) 01 ( Sep), the Upper Tribunal ( Lands Chamber) ( UT) upheld the appellant K’s challenge to a First-tier Tribunal ( Property Chamber) ( FTT) decision that had made a rent repayment order ( RRO) under section 40 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 in favour of three respondents. That order required K to reimburse them for their occupation of an unlicensed house in multiple occupation ( HMO). K had granted a lease of the whole dwelling to a company, LML, on a ‘rent to rent’...
In this issue: Residential property Transferring property Property development Additional property updates this week Daily and weekly news alerts Trackers Residential property Failure to serve claim notice on intermediate landlord did not invalidate RTM claim In the earlier noted A1 Properties ( Sunderland) Ltd v Tudor Studios RTM Company Ltd [2024] UKSC 27, the Supreme Court confirmed that not serving a claim notice on a single landlord does not, of itself, defeat the transfer of the right to manage under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 ( CLRA 2002). See News Analysis by David Jones (associate) & Mark Barley (partner) at Womble Bond Dickinson: Failure to serve claim notice on intermediate landlord did not invalidate RTM claim ( A1 Properties ( Sunderland) v Tudor Studios RTM Co)......
A1 Properties ( Sunderland) Ltd v Tudor Studios RTM Company Ltd [2024] UKSC 27 What are the practical implications of this case? This is a fact-sensitive judgment, reached in part because the intermediate landlord suffered no unfairness: they had the chance to put forward representations and advanced nothing that would have caused the application to transfer the right to manage to be rejected. The court underscored the absence of prejudice: the landlord had notice and a fair chance to respond, but offered nothing substantive. Practitioners should also note that the court’s purposive reading of the statute was permissible only because the CLRA 2002 is silent on the sanction for non-compliance. Therefore, departures from stricter schemes, for example the Landlord & Tenant Act 1954, cannot be excused on the same footing. What was the background? The appeal related to Tudor Studios, a former factory in...
In this issue: Residential property Transferring property Easements, rights and covenants Property taxes Additional property updates this week Daily and weekly news alerts Trackers New Q& As Residential property Failure to serve claim notice did not invalidate transfer of right to manage The Supreme Court unanimously rejected the appeal in A1 Properties ( Sunderland) Ltd v Tudor Studios RTM Company Ltd [2024] UKSC 27, confirming that Tudor Studios RTM Company Ltd ( Tudor Studios RTM Company)’s omission to serve a claim notice on A1 Properties ( Sunderland) Ltd ( A1 Properties) did not undo the transfer of the right to manage. The issue for decision was the consequence of non-compliance with section 79(6)(a) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 ( CLRA 2002), and whether such a failure necessarily invalidates the process. Court of Appeal...
Takhar v Gracefield Developments Ltd [2024] EWHC 1714 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? Although plainly an exceptional and rare matter, this decision is notable for its thorough treatment of what may follow when forgery features in litigation. It confirms that a judgment procured through the use of a falsified document can be set aside for fraud; moreover, the act of forging and deploying such a document in the proceedings can itself underpin a distinct claim in unlawful means conspiracy. In addition, findings of forgery made in the set aside application can create an issue estoppel, effectively binding the court and the defendants in any subsequent claim where the alleged unlawful means conspiracy is in issue. The court nevertheless sounded a warning. At any trial in the fresh proceedings, the onus remains on the claimant to establish the claim, and the...
Winfield v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 734 ( TC) The taxpayer acquired, in a purchase, a property comprising two self-contained accommodation areas. For ease, they were described as: ‘dwelling 1’. Vacant at the time, it featured a spacious bedroom, an open-plan lounge/dining space, a kitchen, a bathroom, and its external entrances; and ‘dwelling 2’. This housed the taxpayer’s family and included four bedrooms, two bathrooms, reception areas, and separate outside doors. The two units, once part of a single home, were divided by sound- and fire-resistant doors. Both relied on one oil-fired boiler providing hot water and central heating, though the radiators were controlled by independent thermostats. Although two electricity meters were installed, charges for electricity and oil were billed to the......
EE Ltd and another company v AP Wireless II ( UK) Ltd [2024] UKUT 216 ( LC) What are the practical implications of this case? The decision underlines that operators require a real measure of certainty over the term of any site agreement; accordingly, a break right for the site provider should not be capable of immediate exercise. The purpose of the Code is to enable operators to maintain the telecommunications infrastructure, carrying out regular upgrades in a fast‑moving sector. The site provider is not prevented from redeveloping their land, but an appropriate balance must be struck between those interests. It remains important to bear in mind that terms agreed in the run‑up to the hearing will influence the tribunal’s decision. In this instance, the operator accepted that a break could be exercised after five years of the term, and the tribunal...
In this issue: Leasing property Transferring property Statutory compliance Property taxes Property in Scotland Additional property updates this week Daily and weekly news alerts Trackers Leasing property Electronic Communications Code—rent and redevelopment break EE Ltd and another v AP Wireless II ( UK) Ltd [2024] UKUT 216 ( LC) is the tribunal’s first assessment of rent for Code rights on a greenfield location since Affinity Water (2022). It also tackles AP Wireless’s redevelopment case and gives guidance on including a break option in the site agreement. The tribunal emphasised the need to balance site providers’ redevelopment plans with operators’ security and predictability. See News Analysis by Katie Briggs, senior associate solicitor, Property Litigation, Browne Jacobson LLP: Electronic Communications Code—rent at greenfield site and break option clarity ( EE v AP Wireless). Transferring property HMLR has revised section 4.1 of Practice Guide 67— Evidence of identity, clarifying the process for obtaining an identity facility letter. See: LNB News...
In this issue: Transferring property Easements, rights and covenants Property development Property taxes Property insolvency Property in Scotland Key developments and horizon scanning Additional property updates this week Daily and weekly news alerts Trackers Transferring property HM Land Registry updates Practice Guide 1 and forms FR1 and AP1 HM Land Registry has revised Practice Guide 1— First registrations, together with forms AP1— Change the register and FR1— First registration: application. See: LNB News 05/08/2024. Easements, rights and covenants Registration of easements—whether right of way acquired by prescription over private road In Sagier v Kaur, the Upper Tribunal ( Lands Chamber) (the UT) allowed the appellant’s appeal from the First-tier Tribunal ( FTT), directing the Chief Land Registrar to cancel the appellant’s application to register a private right of way over part of a private road owned by the respondent. The appellant had applied to the Land Registry to enter a right of way over the...
Brown v Ulrick (as the liquidator of S. A. L. Holdings Ltd) S. A. L. Holdings Ltd (in members’ voluntary liquidation) [2024] EWHC 2041 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling highlights three key themes that merit special attention: Assessing evidence on an application under IR 2016, SI 2016/1024, r 14.8 — the judgment serves as a timely reminder for insolvency practitioners of the authorities on weighing written evidence where no cross-examination is ordered (see paras [58]–[60]). The court’s reasoning shows how this principled approach shaped its evaluation of the material across the judgment (see paras [56]–[100]). The correct measure of damages for a breach of a covenant not to alter — the court undertook a closely reasoned analysis explaining why, on these facts, expectation loss was preferred to reliance loss. This guidance will assist property and...
In this issue: Leasing property Property development Residential property Key developments and horizon scanning Lex Talk®Property: a Lexis®Nexis community Additional property updates this week Daily and weekly news alerts Trackers Leasing property Code—terms of renewal lease In EE Ltd v AP Wireless II ( UK) Ltd [2024] UKUT 216 ( LC), the Upper Tribunal ( Lands Chamber) fixed the terms of a replacement lease for a telecommunications site under the Electronic Communications Code. The earlier lease had ended and the claimants sought new Code rights from the present landlord. Two issues were in dispute: (1) the conditions allowing the landlord to bring the new lease to an end for redevelopment, and (2) the level of rent or consideration payable. The parties’ valuers advanced divergent figures—£1,000 per annum for the claimants and £2,850 per annum for the respondent. The Tribunal found for the respondent on the break right, permitting termination for...
The Labour Manifesto Released ahead of the July 2024 General Election, Labour’s Manifesto pledged sweeping planning changes to unlock development and stimulate economic growth; see News Analysis: What the planning industry can expect from the new Labour government. After the new Labour administration took office, the Chancellor of the Exchequer delivered a speech on 8 July 2024 promising a consultation on the NPPF before the end of July, heralding a ‘new growth-focused approach to the planning system’ and the reinstatement of mandatory housing targets. The NPPF consultation duly appeared on 30 July 2024. Running for eight weeks, it outlines the government’s intended approach to updating the NPPF ‘in order to achieve sustainable growth in the planning system’. It also invites feedback on a range of broader policy measures, including raising planning fees, criteria for intervening in local plans, and suitable...
In this issue: Key developments and horizon scanning Transferring property Property management Leasing property Property in Scotland Additional property updates this week Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Trackers New Q& As Key developments and horizon scanning Elements of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 ( LFRA 2024) are now in effect from 24 July 2024. These are section 113 (controls over remedies for arrears of rentcharges), section 117 (recovery of legal costs etc via the service charge), section 118 (repeal of section 125 of the Building Safety Act 2022 ( BSA 2022)) and section 119 (higher-risk and relevant buildings: insolvency-related notifications). The balance of LFRA 2024 will be commenced by regulations. We have released a new Practice Note on LFRA 2024 (see New and updated content below) and...
Lehner v Lant Street Management Ltd [2024] UKUT 0135 ( LC) What are the practical implications of this case? The BSA 2022 sets out a regime safeguarding leaseholders with ‘qualifying leases’ against paying, in whole or in part, service charges that would otherwise fall due from them as their contribution towards expenditure connected with ‘relevant defects’ arising out of post‑ Grenfell cladding remediation costs. Its widest protection relieves all leaseholders of any duty to fund ‘relevant measures’ where the landlord was ‘responsible for’ the particular defect. When that requirement is fulfilled, the protection is absolute and complete; accordingly, if it is not, leaseholder contributions still remain constrained by a ‘permitted maximum’ payable by leaseholders. The protections apply not only to the works themselves but also to associated professional fees and legal costs, including sums otherwise recoverable through service charges. The principal provisions lie in BSA 2022, s 122 and...
Tanfield (as executor of the Estate of Paul Watkins) and another company v Meadowbrook Montessori Ltd [2024] EWHC 1759 ( Ch), [2024] All ER ( D) 77 ( Jul) What are the practical implications of this case? The court’s assessment of the respondent’s cross‑claim is especially significant for the following reasons: Forfeiture and the common law rules—the judgment sets out the arguments underpinning the company’s ‘strongly arguable case’ that a purported forfeiture by peaceable re‑entry was unlawful where no formal common law demand for rent was made before re‑entry and the lease did not waive the requirement for such a demand (see paras [75]–[84]). This element of the ruling serves as a useful reminder of the prior demand rules at common law which may bite where a proviso for re‑entry in the lease does not expressly dispense with the necessity for a formal rent demand....
In this issue: Key development and horizon scanning Property development Statutory compliance Property management Leasing property Transferring property Property taxes Additional property updates this week Daily and weekly news alerts Trackers Key development and horizon scanning King’s Speech 2024—property measures The King’s Speech 2024 outlined measures affecting the property industry that were widely expected after Labour’s election campaign, including ending ‘no‑fault’ evictions in the private rented sector and advancing Law Commission proposals on enfranchisement, commonhold and the right to manage. The background briefing, in fleshing out the detail, confirms that reform will include regulation of ground rents—trailed during Labour’s campaign but omitted from the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 ( LFRA 2024)—and also refers to abolishing residential forfeiture. This reform has been on the table for some time: the Law...
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
