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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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: Leasing property Transferring property Property taxes Key developments and horizon scanning Additional property updates this week Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Trackers New Q& As No Weekly Highlights on 24 April 2025 Leasing property Relief from forfeiture—residential sub-tenants of mixed-use building Derwent Lodge Estates Ltd v Signature Living Hotel Ltd (in administration) [2025] Lexis Citation 964 centred on an appeal from a District Judge’s decision setting the terms of relief from forfeiture for residential sub-tenants (the Appellants) of part of a mixed-use property after the head lease had been forfeited. The appeal was rejected, the court confirming, among other points, that the District Judge had lawfully exercised her discretion by granting relief via vesting a fresh lease of the entire building in the Appellants on terms matching those of the...
In this issue: Transferring property Easements, rights and covenants Property management Residential property Property in Wales Property taxes Additional property updates this week Daily and weekly news alerts Trackers Transferring property The Law of Property Act 1925–100 years of shaping property law As it reaches its centenary, the Law of Property Act 1925 continues to be a fundamental pillar of property law in England and Wales. In their article, Rebecca Mitchell and Camilla Brown of Collyer Bristow examine the reforms that reshaped land transactions, their lasting influence, and the argument for modernisation amid today’s shifting real estate landscape. See News Analysis: The Law of Property Act 1925—100 years of shaping property law. Beneficial ownership on bankruptcy In Armstrong and others v Bhattacharya (a bankrupt) and another [2025] EWHC 597 ( Ch), the High Court granted the applications of trustees in bankruptcy for orders under section 14 of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (...
Patel v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 373 ( TCC) The taxpayer acquired two dwellings that were in the process of being amalgamated into a single five-bedroom residence. At the time of purchase, the site was essentially a construction zone: replacement roofs were being installed and the walls were exposed concrete or brickwork. The planning consent for the conversion imposed a condition barring occupation of the completed house until a separate, nearby scheme of five residential units had been finished and was ready for occupation. The taxpayer’s SDLT return treated the two as residential property and claimed multiple dwellings relief. He later submitted a claim for overpayment relief, contending......
This year celebrates 100 years since the Law of Property Act 1925 ( LPA 1925), a foundational statute that transformed how land is bought and sold in England and Wales. Although today’s practitioners may take streamlined property rules as a given, the 1925 programme was a bold break from a cumbersome and dated regime. As we mark this centenary, it is a timely chance to consider why change was needed, its enduring influence on property law, and whether the Act is still fit for purpose in an evolving real estate landscape. The need for reform In the early twentieth century, the framework governing land ownership was antiquated and notoriously complex. Anchored in feudal tradition, it primarily shielded wealthy landowners, preserving hereditary transmission of estates. Knotted layers of ownership produced overlaps between legal and equitable interests, so property could rarely be handled with ease. The result was...
In this issue: Transferring property Residential property Property management Statutory compliance Property development Investigating title Property taxes Property in Wales Property in Scotland Lex Talk®Property: a Lexis®Nexis community Additional property updates this week Daily and weekly news alerts Trackers New Q& As Transferring property Adverse possession upheld. In Kirkman v Bradshaw Pub Company Ltd [2025] UKUT 110 ( LC), the Upper Tribunal heard an appeal from the First-tier Tribunal ( Property Chamber) about the appellant’s bid for first registration based on adverse possession. The appeal succeeded in part; the Tribunal decided the appellant had proved adverse possession over the whole of the land in dispute. See: [2025] UKUT 110 ( LC). Residential property Tribunal appointed manager—appointment extended. In Kirk v The Sheffield Bath Company Ltd [2025] UKUT 111 ( LC), the Upper...
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 Residential property Property development Transferring property Insurance Property in Wales Property in Scotland Property taxes Additional property updates this week Daily and weekly news alerts Trackers New Q& As Key developments and horizon scanning Spring Statement 2025 The Spring Statement 2025 from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, outlined planning reforms intended to release housing supply. A range of built environment bodies have published their reactions. See: LNB News 26/03/2025 50 and LNB News 27/03/2025 54. Residential property Upper Tribunal clarification on the statutory test for a ‘self-contained part of building’ in right to manage claims In The Courtyard RTM Co Ltd v Rockwell ( FC103) Ltd [2025] UKUT 39 ( LC), the Upper Tribunal ( UT) examined the statutory meaning of a...
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...
In this issue Leasing property Statutory compliance Residential property Property development Transferring property Easements, rights and covenants Property in Wales Property taxes Additional property updates this week Daily and weekly news alerts Trackers New Q& As Leasing property Landlord’s reliance on ground (g) to resist a new business tenancy did not infringe the ECHR In MVL Properties (2017) Ltd v The Leadmill Ltd [2025] EWHC 349 ( Ch), the High Court held that a landlord’s opposition to granting a renewed lease under ground (g) of section 30(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 did not violate the European Convention on Human Rights. The court firmly dismissed the tenant’s case that the landlord’s plan to run ‘essentially the same business’ would amount to taking the tenant’s goodwill, which had become associated with the premises, contrary to the tenant’s possessions right protected by Article 1 of Protocol 1, as a breach of the human right to property. See News...
Our verdict The Planning and Infrastructure Bill reached Parliament on 11 March 2025. It sits at the heart of the Labour government’s programme and aligns with its stated missions, which include kickstarting economic growth and making Britain a clean energy superpower, as well as its broader commitments to reform the planning regime to support development—including the delivery of 1.5 million new homes over the course of the current parliament. It is, by any standard, an ambitious package of legislation. However, even though many of the measures proposed are encouraging for developers, especially the reintroduction of spatial planning and the updating of National Policy Statements, significant challenges and uncertainties remain in practice, particularly concerning the sufficient and sustained resourcing of LPAs. LPAs will gain new powers to set their own planning fees, rather than rates being set nationally by the Secretary of State as is...
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...
In this issue: Key developments and horizon scanning Transferring property Easements, rights and covenants Statutory compliance Property development Property in Wales Lex Talk®Property: a Lexis®Nexis community Additional property updates this week Daily and weekly news alerts Trackers New Q& As Key developments and horizon scanning White Paper on reformed commonhold model in England and Wales The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government ( MHCLG) has issued a White Paper setting out proposals for how a reformed commonhold regime would operate in England and Wales. It answers the Law Commission’s 2020 recommendations to revive commonhold as an alternative to leasehold and charts the next steps to make commonhold the default tenure. MHCLG also pledges to support a new Code of Practice on cost apportionment within commonhold and to tighten regulation of managing agents in...
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: Transferring property Statutory compliance Leasing property Residential property Property development Environment, energy and buildings Investigating title Property in Scotland Additional property updates this week Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Trackers Transferring property Supreme Court holds any ten-year period of reasonable belief within period of adverse possession sufficient In Brown v Ridley [2025] UKSC 7, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal unanimously. Interpreting LRA 2002, Sch 6, para 5(4)(c) correctly, the Court confirmed that any qualifying ten-year stretch during which the applicant reasonably believed they owned the land is enough. See: Supreme Court holds that any ten-year period of reasonable belief of ownership sufficient for registration under LRA 2002 ( Brown v Ridley). HM Land Registry updates Practice Guide 8 HM Land Registry ( HMLR) has revised Practice Guide 8—...
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: Leasing property Statutory compliance Residential property Property management Investigating title Transferring property Property insolvency Property development Additional property updates this week Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Trackers New Q& As Leasing property Opposition to renewal of business tenancy — landlord’s intention to occupy for the purpose of its business In MVL Properties (2017) Ltd v the Leadmill Ltd [2025] EWHC 349 ( Ch), the court held that the landlord had proven both the subjective and the objective limbs necessary to make out the statutory ground of opposition to a renewal under Section 30(1)(g) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, specifically, a genuine, firm and settled intention to take occupation of the premises for its own business purposes, and a realistic prospect of putting that plan into...
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...
Mead Realisations Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and another [2025] EWCA Civ 32 What are the practical implications of this case? This judgment provides a close examination of the connection between the NPPF and the PPG—two distinct strands of national planning policy regularly relied upon by participants in both plan-making and development management. Although the court concentrated on how the NPPF and PPG interact in the particular setting of flood risk and the sequential test, its conclusions about their respective roles and their interrelationship have general effect and broader importance. The court found that they typically serve different purposes: the NPPF sets out aims and overarching principles, while the PPG clarifies these and explains how they should be applied. The PPG is prepared through a less formal process, making it more accessible and capable of adapting to changing...
In this issue: Key developments and horizon scanning Residential property Environment, energy and buildings Property development Leasing property Property Insolvency Property in Wales Property in Scotland Property taxes Additional property updates this week Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Trackers New Q& As Key developments and horizon scanning Right to manage provisions of LFRA 2024 in force 3 March The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 ( Commencement No 3) Regulations 2025, SI 2025/131, activate specified elements of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 ( LFRA 2024) on 3 March 2025. Under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 ( CLRA 2002), leaseholders in blocks of flats can collectively assume control of building management from the landlord without buying the freehold. One hurdle has been the cap on...
Sarabande v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 93 ( TC) SB, a registered charity, holds a long lease of a central London property (the Building). Suture Inc Ltd ( SIL), SB’s wholly owned subsidiary, is not VAT-registered. In 2018, SB opted for voluntary VAT registration and sought to recover £341,487.31 of VAT incurred on purchasing and refurbishing the Building. The project transformed what had been a warehouse-style area into art studios, gallery space and meeting rooms. SB’s objective was to create a venue to nurture an artists’ community, and it devised a structured support scheme for artists called the ‘ Accelerator Programme’. Through this programme, artists were offered curated, subsidised space, comprising studio and exhibition areas together with a bundle of benefits, including use of professional equipment, guidance from sector specialists and hands-on assistance from as well as advice from industry experts and practical support offered by SB...
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
