Commercial nonsense and the reasonable man: Arnold v Britton & Ors [2015] UKSC 36 – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted July 28th, 2015 in appeals, covenants, leases, news, Supreme Court by sally

‘In this case, the Supreme Court considered to what extent lessees could escape what appeared to be a very bad bargain indeed. The crux of the case was: to what extent can commercial common sense defeat a contractual provision which defies it?”

Full story

Hardwicke Chambers, 24th July 2015

Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk

Comments Off on Commercial nonsense and the reasonable man: Arnold v Britton & Ors [2015] UKSC 36 – Hardwicke Chambers

High Court: solicitors had duty to advise on commercial element of deal – Legal Futures

Posted July 13th, 2015 in causation, competition, covenants, negligence, news, restraint of trade, solicitors by tracey

‘The High Court has dismissed a claim against a firm of solicitors, despite finding it negligent in failing to raise the absence of a covenant in restraint of competition during the purchase of a commercial property.’

Full story

Legal Futures, 13th July 2015

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Comments Off on High Court: solicitors had duty to advise on commercial element of deal – Legal Futures

The Supreme Court interprets fixed service charges – 36 Bedford Row Property Blog

Posted June 16th, 2015 in appeals, covenants, leases, news, service charges, Supreme Court by sally

‘The Supreme Court has handed down judgment in Arnold v. Britton & Ors. [2015] U. K. S. C. 36, concerning the construction of service charge clauses for holiday chalets in Oxwich Bay, South Wales (pictured). In so doing, it has taken the opportunity to reiterate and re-emphasise some fundamental principles of contractual interpretation.’

Full story

36 Bedford Row Property Blog, 11th June 2015

Source: www.36property.co.uk

Comments Off on The Supreme Court interprets fixed service charges – 36 Bedford Row Property Blog

Assignments and anti-avoidance: the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 – New Square Chambers

Posted March 17th, 2015 in appeals, covenants, landlord & tenant, news by sally

‘The Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995, applies to “new tenancies” – tenancies granted on or after 1 January 1996. It reformed privity of contract in this area, giving a clean break to tenants on assignment of a new tenancy, except for excluded assignments and authorised guarantee agreements(AGAs). A guarantor is released to the same extent as a tenant upon a lawful assignment. s.25(1)(a) makes void agreements which have effective to frustrate the provisions of the 1995 Act. Below is a look at recent decisions concerning the application of the anti-avoidance provision and of other provisions against that background.’

Full story (PDF)

New Square Chambers, February 2015

Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk

Comments Off on Assignments and anti-avoidance: the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 – New Square Chambers

“New for Old”: New terms in renewed leases under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 require good reasons – New Square Chambers

Posted March 17th, 2015 in covenants, landlord & tenant, leases, news, service charges by sally

‘In the absence of agreement, the terms of any new lease to be granted under the provisions of Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 are to be determined by the court in accordance with sections 32 to 35 of that 1954.’

Full story (PDF)

New Square Chambers, February 2015

Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk

Comments Off on “New for Old”: New terms in renewed leases under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 require good reasons – New Square Chambers

Edwards v Kumarasamy – WLR Daily

Posted February 3rd, 2015 in appeals, covenants, landlord & tenant, law reports, repairs by tracey

Edwards v Kumarasamy; [2015] EWCA Civ 20; [2015] WLR (D) 40

‘A tenant was not required to give notice of a defect to a landlord for the latter to be liable under section 11(1A) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for injury or loss to the tenant resulting from the failure of the landlord to keep in repair any part of the building in which the landlord had an interest.’

WLR Daily, 28th January 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off on Edwards v Kumarasamy – WLR Daily

Court of Appeal: landlord entitled to refuse new lease due to tenant’s failure to allow access – OUT-LAW.com

Posted July 9th, 2014 in covenants, landlord & tenant, leases, news, repairs by sally

‘A landlord was entitled to refuse to grant a new tenancy to a commercial tenant due to that tenant’s “substantial breach” of provisions in the lease allowing the landlord to access and inspect the property regularly, the Court of Appeal in England has said.’

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 9th July 2014

Source: www.out-law.com

Comments Off on Court of Appeal: landlord entitled to refuse new lease due to tenant’s failure to allow access – OUT-LAW.com

Historic Neglect – Nearlylegal

Posted July 4th, 2014 in covenants, landlord & tenant, leases, news, repairs by tracey

‘Daejan Properties Ltd v Griffin & Anor [2014] UKUT 206 (LC) is not, perhaps, the most riveting of Upper Tribunal appeals on service charges, but it does have some useful statements and reminders along the way.’

Full story

Nearlylegal, 3rd July 2014

Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/

Comments Off on Historic Neglect – Nearlylegal

Conservation Covenants – Law Commission

Posted June 27th, 2014 in covenants, environmental protection, reports by tracey

‘A report recommending a new statutory scheme be established to allow landowners to ensure the long-term conservation of features on their land such as forests, habitats and historic buildings.’

Full report

Law Commission, 24th June 2014

Source: www.justice.gov.uk/lawcommission

Comments Off on Conservation Covenants – Law Commission

Getting section 146 notices right: Anders v Haralambous – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted February 14th, 2014 in appeals, covenants, leases, news, repossession by sally

‘Despite the 146 notice having been around, in one form or another, for more than 130 years, it is still causing as much angst as ever. The High Court appeal in Anders v Haralambous [2013] EWHC 2676 (QB), in which John de Waal QC acted for the Respondent, highlights the added complication of the interaction between s146 and the determination of breach pursuant to s168 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.’

Full story

Hardwicke Chambers, 4th February 2014

Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk

Comments Off on Getting section 146 notices right: Anders v Haralambous – Hardwicke Chambers

Buzzoni and others v Revenue and Customs Comrs – WLR Daily

Posted January 22nd, 2014 in covenants, inheritance tax, law reports, leases by sally

Buzzoni and others v Revenue and Customs Comrs [2013] EWCA Civ 1684; [2014] WLR (D) 13

‘Whether property disposed of by way of gift was enjoyed to the entire or virtually entire exclusion of any benefit to the donor by contract or otherwise, and whether it constituted property “subject to a reservation” within the meaning of section 102(1)(b) of the Finance Act 1986 for the purposes of inheritance tax under the Inheritance Act 1984, depended not on whether the donor had obtained a benefit from the gifted property but whether the donee’s enjoyment of that property remained exclusive. If the benefit to the donor had no impact on, was irrelevant to and made no or virtually no difference to the donee’s enjoyment, the donee’s enjoyment was to the entire or virtually entire exclusion of any benefit to the donor and, therefore, the gifted property would be an exempt transfer and not subject to inheritance tax.’

WLR Daily, 19th December 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off on Buzzoni and others v Revenue and Customs Comrs – WLR Daily

Elwood v Goodman and others – WLR Daily

Posted September 6th, 2013 in appeals, contracts, covenants, land registration, law reports, roads by tracey

Elwood v Goodman and others: [2013] EWCA Civ 1103;   [2013] WLR (D)  342

“The burden in equity of a positive covenant did not require to be registered in order to bind successors in title of the original covenantor.”

WLR Daily, 4th September 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off on Elwood v Goodman and others – WLR Daily

Leasehold repair covenants and damages – NearlyLegal

Posted June 28th, 2013 in covenants, damages, leases, news, repairs by tracey

“Hunt & Ors v Optima (Cambridge) Ltd & Ors [2013] EWHC 681 (TCC).
This is a brief note on what was a complex case arising out of what, by any measure, appears to have been a very poor construction and subsequent maintenance of a new build block of flats. As will become clear, I’m rather troubled by some of the Court’s findings.”

Full story

NearlyLegal, 25th June 2013

Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk

Comments Off on Leasehold repair covenants and damages – NearlyLegal

Not in my court – NearlyLegal

Posted June 7th, 2013 in covenants, forfeiture, housing, leases, news by tracey

“Forfeiture is, for the most part, beloved by landlords and hated/feared by tenants. For what might be relatively minor breaches of covenant, you can lose your lease and the landlord make an enormous windfall. The legislative trend is (slowly) in favour of restricting (and possibly even abolishing) forfeiture as demonstrated by s.168, Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. By s.168, Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, a landlord may not serve a notice under s.146, Law of Property Act 1925, or otherwise exercise a right of re-entry (i.e. forfeiture) in respect of a breach of a covenant (other than one to pay rent – which is unaffected by s.146, see s.146(11); or service/administration charges, which are dealt with under s.81, Housing Act 1996), unless the breach has been admitted by the tenant or determined by a court, LVT or arbitral tribunal.”

Full story

NearlyLegal, 3rd June 2013

Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk

Comments Off on Not in my court – NearlyLegal

Burr v OM Property Management Ltd – WLR Daily

Burr v OM Property Management Ltd: [2013] EWCA Civ 479;   [2013] WLR (D)  164

“When determining the amount of any service charge payable by a tenant for services supplied, on the natural and ordinary meaning of the words of section 20B of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, ‘costs’ were not ‘incurred’ on the mere provision of the services or supplies made to the landlord or management company.”

WLR Daily, 3rd May 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off on Burr v OM Property Management Ltd – WLR Daily

Conservation covenants – Law Commission

Posted March 28th, 2013 in consultations, covenants, environmental protection, press releases by tracey

“We have opened a consultation asking whether England and Wales should adopt conservation covenants.”

Full press release and consultation

Law Commission, 28th March 2013

Source: www.justice.gov.uk/lawcommission

Comments Off on Conservation covenants – Law Commission

Daejan Investments Ltd v Benson and others – WLR Daily

Daejan Investments Ltd v Benson and others [2013] UKSC 14; [2013] WLR (D) 94

“Where a landlord’s failure to consult fully with tenants before carrying out major repairs to a block of flats would preclude recovery from the tenants of the full cost of the works unless a leasehold valuation tribunal granted a dispensation under section 20ZA(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 from the relevant consultation requirement, dispensation was not to be refused as a punitive measure solely because a landlord had breached the consultation requirements in the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations (SI 2003/1987)) but rather the tribunal could grant the dispensation on terms which reflected the actual prejudice which the tenants had suffered.”

WLR Daily, 6th March 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off on Daejan Investments Ltd v Benson and others – WLR Daily

Lloyds TSB Foundation for Scotland v Lloyds Banking Group plc – WLR Daily

Posted January 24th, 2013 in banking, charities, contracts, covenants, law reports, Supreme Court, taxation by sally

Lloyds TSB Foundation for Scotland v Lloyds Banking Group plc [2013] UKSC 3; [2013] WLR (D) 19

“In construing a contractual provision, where there had been an unforeseeable and fundamental change in the legal context since the execution of the contract, the proper approach was to adopt a meaning which best gave effect to the parties’ original intentions and purposes. Where, therefore, a deed executed in 1997 provided for payment to be made by a banking group to a charitable foundation by reference to the group’s pre-tax profit or loss shown in the audited accounts, and a change in accounting practice subsequently required the group consolidated income statement to include, as a profit, a sum representing an unrealised gain on acquisition, the inclusion of such a sum was to be ignored for the purposes of calculating the amount payable to the foundation under the deed.”

WLR Daily, 23rd January 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off on Lloyds TSB Foundation for Scotland v Lloyds Banking Group plc – WLR Daily

Discharging leasehold covenants – NearlyLegal

Posted July 17th, 2012 in covenants, leases, news by sally

“Restrictive covenants are, in broad terms, contractual restrictions imposed on the current user/owner of land, often imposed by a former owner of the same land (e.g. Mr A sells a field to Mr B, but includes a covenant preventing Mr B from building flats on it). These covenants can, clearly, become onerous or otherwise unnecessary with the passage of time. The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) has a discretionary power (s.84, Law of Property Act 1925) to modify or discharge these covenants in certain circumstances. The most common ground is s.84(1)(aa), which applies if the removal of the covenant would support a reasonable use of the land and any inconvenience can be met by a payment of money.”

Full story

NearlyLegal, 17th July 2012

Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk

Comments Off on Discharging leasehold covenants – NearlyLegal

K/S Victoria Street v House of Fraser (Stores Management) Ltd and others – WLR Daily

Posted August 1st, 2011 in assignment, covenants, law reports, leases by tracey

K/S Victoria Street v House of Fraser (Stores Management) Ltd and others [2011] EWCA Civ 904;  [2011] WLR (D)  265

“Any contractual arrangement contained in a tenancy (or a prior agreement ), which imposed an obligation on an existing or prospective guarantor of the tenant’s liabilities to guarantee the liabilities of a future assignee, would be void by reason of section 25(1) of the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 because it frustrated the operation of section 24(2) of that Act, by which the original tenant’s guarantor was released from his obligation on the assignment of the tenancy. Similarly, a contractual arrangement contained in a later document, for instance, a renewal obligation imposed on a guarantor of an assignee’s liabilities in an assignment or a licence to assign, would be invalid.”

WLR Daily, 27th July 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off on K/S Victoria Street v House of Fraser (Stores Management) Ltd and others – WLR Daily