Legal News

Background In the wake of the 2017 Grenfell Tower tragedy, Dame Judith Hackitt’s ‘ Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety’ (the Hackitt Report), commissioned by the government in response to this event, highlighted major shortcomings in fire safety arrangements for high-rise dwellings and in the construction materials employed. The Building Safety Act 2022 ( BSA 2022) was subsequently enacted. Numerous elements of BSA 2022 apply in Wales (although in some instances on a different timetable with separate regulations). That said, BSA 2022, Pt 4 ( Occupation and Management – Higher- Risk Buildings) does not apply, and the Welsh Government are pursuing a distinct, devolved framework for the regulation of multi-occupied residential buildings, informed by the Hackitt Report and the recommendations of the Welsh Government’s Building Safety Expert Group. This framework is now articulated in the Building Safety ( Wales) Bill (the Bill), which...

In this issue: Property management Transferring property Property development Insurance Additional property updates this week Daily and weekly news alerts Trackers New Q& A Property management Service charges and unsafe cladding — Building Safety Act 2022 In Almacantar Centre Point Nominee No.1 Ltd and another company v De Valk and others [2025] UKUT 298 ( LC), the Upper Tribunal ( Lands Chamber) ruled that the bar on recovering service charges for unsafe cladding remediation in paragraph 8 of Schedule 8 to the Building Safety Act 2022 ( BSA 2022) applies irrespective of when the cladding was installed, and is not restricted to ‘relevant defects’ as defined in section 120(2) BSA 2022, which refers to them occurring in the 30 year period before section 120 took effect. The dispute arose from the freeholder’s appeal against a...

Morningstar DBRS Morningstar DBRS noted the sector is in a soft market, characterised by plentiful supply and muted demand, which is keeping prices down. However, the firm cautioned this phase may reverse if capacity — especially across reinsurance capital markets — diminishes, forcing rates higher. The industry has also endured successive years of escalating losses triggered by natural catastrophes, including hurricanes and wildfires. In the first six months of the year, insurers posted US$80bn of claims, the highest tally for that timeframe in over a year to date so far......

R (on the application of Chidswell Action Group) v Kirklees Council [2025] EWHC 2256 ( Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? The High Court confirmed that, to satisfy article 40(3)(b) of the Town and Country Planning ( Development Management Procedure) ( England) Order 2015, SI 2015/595 (2015 DMPO), any section 106 agreement must appear on the planning register before the authority issues the decision notice. Uploading it later the same day, or only after the permission is granted, will not do; publication has to be early enough to give objectors and other interested persons a genuine window to provide informed representations. The court emphasised that keeping the draft back while talks continued produced a serious transparency deficit, all the more so where biodiversity protections lay at the heart of the committee’s resolution. The judgment aligns with the Court of Appeal’s ruling in...

AP Wireless II ( UK) Ltd v On Tower ( UK) Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 971 What are the practical implications of this case? The Court of Appeal has provided fresh guidance on managing telecoms arrangements when reviewing agreements already in place. The crucial first step is to establish whether an existing arrangement is a lease or a licence and, accordingly, whether the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 ( LTA 1954) or the Electronic Communications Code (the ‘ Code’) applies when considering renewal or termination. For those representing Operators or Site Providers who intend to commence the renewal or bring their current telecommunications arrangements to an end, it is essential to determine at the outset whether the arrangement is a lease or a licence. A licence falls within the Code and requires service of the prescribed notice in accordance with the Code. In light of this...

In this issue: Key developments and horizon scanning Leasing property Transferring property Easements, rights and covenants Lex Talk®Property: a Lexis®Nexis community Additional property updates this week Daily and weekly news alerts Trackers New Q& A Key developments and horizon scanning Law Commission’s 14th programme of reform On 4 September 2025, the Law Commission unveiled its 14th Programme of Law reform. The newly announced workstreams cover agricultural tenancies, commercial leasehold, deeds, management of housing estates and ownerless land. New projects The Law Commission already has a project examining the right to renew business tenancies under Part 2 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. The fresh commercial leasehold initiative will contain two sub-projects: issues arising under the Landlord and Tenant ( Covenants) Act 1995, and rights of first refusal under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, so far as the law...

In this issue: Leasing property Residential property Easements, rights and covenants Property development Property in Wales Additional property updates this week Daily and weekly news alerts Trackers New Q& As Leasing property Electronic Communications Code—sharing rights not impacted by PSTIA 2022 In On Tower UK Ltd v AP Wireless II ( UK) Ltd [2025] UKUT 280 ( LC), the Upper Tribunal ( Lands Chamber) ( UT) allowed an appeal on the terms of new telecommunications leases over 12 greenfield sites to be granted to the appellant. The appellant wanted lease provisions permitting the sharing of its apparatus, sites and related rights with prospective customers, whereas the First-tier Tribunal ( FTT) had limited sharing for these ‘ Category B sharers’ to apparatus alone. The UT determined that earlier authorities endorsing wider sharing continue to stand,...

Global 100 Ltd v Ross and others [2025] UKUT 264 ( LC) What are the practical implications of this case? The practical effect of this ruling concerns the method by which the FTT identifies those 'persons managing' or 'in control' of a property within Property Guardianship arrangements and schemes, for the purpose of making Rent Repayment Orders arising from the specified criminal offences in legislation. In this context, the relevant breach was the failure to licence an HMO. In this matter, the FTT directed its attention to the exact character of the contractual arrangements: the relationship between the local authority that owned the premises, its agreement with GGM, and the detailed terms and provisions of that agreement. That scrutiny was undertaken to establish who, in reality, was receiving monies and fees from the live-in guardians, notwithstanding that GGM and G100 were linked...

In this issue: Leasing property Residential property Statutory compliance Easements, rights and covenants Transferring property Property taxes Property in Scotland Additional property updates this week Daily and weekly news alerts Trackers New Q& A Leasing property Lease protected under 1954 Act— Code renewal application struck out In EE Ltd v Clocktower Investments [2025] Lexis Citation 2146, the First-tier Tribunal ( FTT) considered whether the claimant’s ( EE H3G) lease enjoyed protection under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 ( LTA 1954), or instead fell within Part 5 of the Electronic Communications Code ( Schedule 3A to the Communications Act 2003) (the Code), as implemented by the Digital Economy Act 2017 ( DEA 2017). The FTT concluded that: (i) the lease amounted to a tenancy encompassing premises occupied by the claimant for the...

In this issue: Residential property Property management Statutory compliance Easements, rights and covenants Transferring property HMLR portal enhancements Lex Talk®Property: a Lexis®Nexis community Additional property updates this week Daily and weekly news alerts Trackers New Q& As Residential property Right to manage—strict procedural compliance and equitable tenancies In Avon Freeholds Ltd v Cresta Court E RTM Company Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 1016, the Court of Appeal decided that a right to manage ( RTM) company’s claim notice was ineffective because it breached section 78(1) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 ( CLRA 2002): the company did not serve an equitable long lessee with a notice inviting participation (participation notice) before issuing the claim notice. The Court agreed with the Upper Tribunal ( UT) ( Lands Chamber) that a tenant holding an...

( Sayers and another v Dixon and another [2025] EWHC 1886 ( Ch)) What are the practical implications of this case? Mr Dixon created the Do Ts without any particular creditor in view. It was only six years later that HMRC issued a bankruptcy petition seeking £627,302 for unpaid self-assessment tax, penalties and surcharges; at the time of execution, HMRC was not within his contemplation. Following his bankruptcy in August 2017, he attempted to rely on the Do Ts, asserting that he had shed all assets and income; that everything received since September 2010 was his wife’s or sums loaned by her; and that he had no means. The long interval between the Do Ts and his bankruptcy did not assist him. The judgment demonstrates that IA 1986, s 423 can, in principle, be used to attack transactions concluded many years earlier if the...

Avon Freeholds Ltd v Cresta Court E RTM Company Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 1016 What are the practical implications of this case? The Court addressed what it termed two ‘interesting questions’ ([16]) with practical effects reaching beyond the RTM regime. Question 1: Does a tenant holding a newly granted long lease, pending registration at HM Land Registry and thus valid in equity but not at law, qualify as a ‘qualifying tenant’ under CLRA 2002, s 75? Question 2: If she is a ‘qualifying tenant’, did the omission to serve her with a participation notice render invalid the claim notice later issued by the Respondent RTM company? The Court’s answer to both questions was an unequivocal ‘yes’. Question 1 It is widely recognised that HM Land Registry is experiencing substantial delays. This is not merely exasperating but also carries significant legal consequence. Where a...

On 10 July 2025, the government placed the draft Building Safety Levy ( England) Regulations (the Regulations) before parliament. Drawing on powers created by the Building Safety Act 2022 ( BSA 2022), the Regulations establish the ‘building safety levy’ (the BSL, or the levy). The BSL applies to certain new residential developments. The proceeds will assist with meeting the costs of remediating building safety defects throughout England as a whole. The Regulations set out in detail when liability to pay arises, who must pay and at what stage, together with the approach for calculating the charge due. This article outlines the context for the Regulations and summarises their principal features in brief. Background to the levy Bringing in the BSL is a component of the UK government’s response to the Grenfell Tower Fire. It reflects the government’s view that leaseholders of...

In this issue: Statutory compliance Property development Residential property Transferring property Property insolvency Lex Talk®Property: a Lexis®Nexis community Additional property updates this week Daily and weekly news alerts Trackers New Q& As Statutory compliance Remediation contribution orders can be retrospective The Court of Appeal heard Triathlon Homes v Stratford Village Development Partnership & Others together with Adriatic Land 5 Ltd v Leaseholders of Hippersley Point in March 2025 ( Triathlon Homes LLP v Stratford Village Development Partnership and other companies ( Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, intervening) [2025] EWCA Civ 846). The shared issue across both matters concerned whether key provisions of the Building Safety Act 2022 ( BSA 2022) operate with retrospective effect. In Triathlon, Lords Justices Newey, Nugee and Holgate unanimously rejected the appeal by Stratford Village...

Westminster City Council v Gems House Residences Chiltern Street Ltd and another company [2025] EWHC 1789 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? At the outset, it should be noted that the facts were intricate and the clause at the heart of the construction dispute was atypical (see §18, which reproduces clause 10 of the agreement). As the judge remarked at §31, steering a court towards alternative wording that might have eliminated doubt is seldom of real assistance when construing an agreement. By the same token, the result here hinges on the particular language chosen and offers limited guidance where different terminology is used. There is also a real possibility that the decision could be overturned on appeal (the City Council’s application for permission to appeal remains pending). Nonetheless, the judgment offers significant help to...

What are the practical implications of this case? This decision carries real weight for practitioners as it narrows HMO licensing offences and the levying of civil penalties to genuinely ‘ongoing’ management activities, rather than brief, ‘snapshot’ involvement by agents at the outset of a let. It is expected to bolster ‘let-only’ instructions for finding HMO occupants and putting tenancies in place. Local authority enforcement teams should treat this as essential reading and revisit any live matters targeting letting agents under comparable arrangements, particularly where the likelihood of achieving a conviction could be materially reduced... What was the background? The appellant was a director of Discover Residential Ltd (the Company), a letting agency based in Essex. On 20 April 2023, the respondent local housing authority issued him with a financial penalty of £7,064.32 after the Company—acting on a ‘let-only’ basis—had arranged the letting of rooms in a...

Lowe v The Governors of Sutton’s Hospital In Charterhouse [2025] EWCA Civ 857 What are the practical implications of this case? The tenancy deposit regime is not elegantly drafted and has prompted a wave of technical litigation. This judgment offers useful clarity on how courts approach imperfect landlord compliance: A prescribed information certificate containing an inaccuracy should be interpreted as any statutory notice. If a reasonable recipient would grasp the correct details from it, the legislative requirements are treated as satisfied. The absence of a signature on the prescribed information certificate did not invalidate it. Here, the certificate was sent with a covering letter signed by the landlord’s agent; read together, the latter authenticated the former for the purposes of the statutory scheme. What was the background? In January 2010, C entered a contractual fixed-term tenancy of a residential flat within the...

Building safety; statutory construction; retrospectivity; exercise of discretion by FTT; meaning of ‘just and equitable’ ( Triathlon Homes LLP v Stratford Village Development Partnership & Others) Triathlon Homes LLP v Stratford Village Development Partnership and other companies ( Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, intervening) [2025] EWCA Civ 846 What are the practical implications of this case? This is the first appellate ruling on RCOs and confirms the wide scope of matters the tribunal may weigh when using its discretion to make an order. There are several practical lessons for practitioners. In particular: first, the exposure to unknown and potential no‑fault‑based liabilities. It is now clear RCOs can be made for defects originating as long ago as 1992. A change in beneficial ownership of a developer, or of a company associated with a developer, will not absolve those companies from...

In this issue: Property management Leasing property Residential property Transferring property Investigating title Property insolvency Easements, rights and covenants Property development Additional property updates this week Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Trackers Property management Building Safety Act 2022 and recoverability of service charges In Adriatic Land 5 Ltd v Long Leaseholders at Hippersley Point [2025] EWCA Civ 856, the Court of Appeal considered whether paragraph 9 of Schedule 8 to the Building Safety Act 2022 ( BSA 2022) operates retrospectively so as to bar landlords from passing on specified service charge liabilities to holders of qualifying leases. By majority, the court also concluded the pertinent BSA 2022 provisions have retroactive effect. Consequently, a landlord is prohibited from recouping certain expenditure incurred before BSA 2022 came into force on 28 June 2022 from...

Adriatic Land 5 Ltd v Long Leaseholders at Hippersley Point [2025] EWCA Civ 856 What are the practical implications of this case? Relevant service charge sums incurred by a landlord and already collected from leaseholders before the commencement of BSA 2022, Sch 8 remain unaffected. Conversely, where a landlord had not succeeded in recovering those categories of service charge costs from a leaseholder under a qualifying lease before the coming into force of BSA 2022, the landlord is now prevented from doing so by the new regime. In the same vein, any relevant service charges incurred after Sch 8 came into force are not recoverable. The effect is potentially far‑reaching, as other provisions within Sch 8 are phrased so as to apply retrospectively, including those addressing cladding remediation, and are therefore likely to have broader implications across similar claims. What was the...