‘The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) has given guidance on the approach to be followed by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) when considering whether there is an estoppel by convention which prevents a leaseholder from denying the payability of a service charge which has not been demanded in accordance with the terms of the lease.’
Arden Chambers, 16th February 2017
Source: www.ardenchambers.com
‘Timothy Taylor Ltd v Mayfair House Corporation & Anor [2016] EWHC 1075 (Ch). It is a commercial property case, but has interesting elements on the way in which building works may be reasonably carried out.’
Nearly Legal, 4th January 2017
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘A tribunal has agreed to a property developer’s request to modify a restrictive covenant preventing the use of land for anything other than car parking, even though the developer had already built social housing on the land in breach of that covenant.’
OUt-LAW.com, 6th December 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Tamsin Cox & Julia Petrenko examine a useful authority for freeholders of residential buildings in relation to Airbnb.’
New Law Journal, 18th November 2016
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
‘In Nemcova v Fairfield Rents Ltd [2016] UKUT 303 (LC), in what has become known as ‘the Airbnb ruling’, the Upper Tribunal gave guidance on the circumstances in which short-term lets might amount to a breach of covenant prohibiting the use of a property for anything other than ‘a private residence’. In this article, Jamal Demachkie (who acted for the successful landlord at first instance and on appeal) provides his analysis of this important decision.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 12th October 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘The Upper Tribunal upheld the FTT’s determination that the lessee had breached a covenant in her lease not to use her flat other than as a private residence by granting a series of short-term lettings of the property. The fact that the lessee had granted the lettings meant that her occupation of the flat was so transient and not sufficiently permanent that she would not consider the property her private residence.’
Tanfield Chambers, 10th October 2016
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘Airbnb seems like a wonderful idea. You can rent out your flat whenever convenient without having to become a full-time landlord or hotelier. It’s an easy way to earn a little extra cash with the added bonus of a world-wide network of other people’s spare rooms available for that well-deserved weekend break. Airbnb now has 60m users, 640,000 “hosts”, 2m listings and 500,000 stays per night. It’s big!’
Tanfield Chambers, 22nd October 2016
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘The last few years have seen short term property letting sites such as Airbnb become the go-to way of booking holiday accommodation in Europe’s most popular cities. Millennial tourists are rejecting stuffy, expensive hotels, preferring instead the flexibility of their own apartment right in the middle of town where, in the words of Airbnb, they can “feel at home anywhere in the world”. In response, those who are lucky enough to own or occupy a city apartment have been quick to meet the demand, with new “hosts” joining the site every day. There are Airbnb kiosks on London’s high streets where tourists can book a property like they used to book a cab.’
Tanfield Chambers, 5th August 2016
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘Development work that restricts natural sunlight to property can in principle be a breach of a ‘quiet enjoyment’ covenant in a lease, even where no formal right to light exists, according to the county court.’
OUT-LAW.com, 17th August 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Did you know that a judge of the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) may be able to hear a county court case and vice versa? Under a scheme being piloted at present, such a thing is indeed possible.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 13th June 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘By their very nature, mixed-use developments involve multiple parties with competing interests. This often leads to disputes regarding the management of the estate and the cost of maintaining it and, ultimately, to leaseholders wanting to take control (either by exercising the right to collective enfranchisement or the right to manage).’
Tanfield Chambers, 10th June 2016
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
Timothy Taylor Ltd v Mayfair House Corpn and another [2016] EWHC 1075 (Ch)
‘The tenant occupied the ground and basement floors of a building from which it operated a gallery. The lease contained terms reserving the landlord’s right to build and a covenant for quiet enjoyment. In order to carry out works on the adjoining upper floors of the building, the landlord erected scaffolding, which enveloped the building, restricting access to the tenant’s gallery and giving the impression that it was closed. The works also caused substantial noise in the tenant’s premises. No financial compensation was offered by the landlord to the tenant for the works undertaken.’
WLR Daily, 10th May 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘This Q&A deals with user clauses in commercial leases. What is permitted by a covenant permitting use solely as a laundrette? Does such a clause permit the provision of dry-cleaning services?’
Hardwicke Chambers, 21st March 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘Forfeiture of (residential) long leases is a controversial subject: on the one hand, it’s clear that there has to be a practical and accessible route for landlords to enforce covenants, whether as to payment of monies or more general “management” covenants (e.g. stopping people just removing load bearing walls); but, on the other, the potential for an enormous (and almost always disproportionate) benefit to the landlord if the lease actually is forfeited is pretty hard to justify. Moreover, as a result of both the general drafting techniques in long leases and some [ahem] interesting Court of Appeal decisions, there is a pretty good case that a landlord can recover his legal and professional costs of pursuing forfeiture matters, even if the breach is trivial or if relief would be granted.’
Nearly Legal, 29th February 2016
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘It is not uncommon for a lease to impose an obligation on one party or another to insure the subject property against the usual insured risks. But difficult questions can arise when the party placing the insurance is not the party in occupation. When and to what extent can the proceeds be shared? And what impact does such an arrangement have on damage caused by the occupier’s negligence?’
Tanfield Chambers, 9th February 2016
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
Moorjani v Durban Estates Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1152; [2015] WLR (D) 509
‘In a case in which a residential tenant claimed to have suffered loss arising from the landlord’s breach of its repairing and insuring obligations, which had caused disrepair to his flat, the loss lay in the impairment of the amenity value of the tenant’s proprietary interest in the flat, and discomfort, inconvenience and distress were only symptoms.’
WLR Daily, 4th December 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Mixed residential and commercial developments frequently cause problems for the residential occupiers and work for lawyers, in particular when the commercial units are let to bars or restaurants which create noise and nuisance in the evenings and at weekends.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 16th September 2015
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘In Freifeld v West Kensington Court Limited [2015] EWCA Civ 806, long-lessees had deliberately granted a future sub-lease of a commercial unit to a Chinese restaurant in breach of their alienation covenant not to sublet without landlord’s consent. An initial application for relief from forfeiture failed, because the tenants had wilfully breached their alienation covenant, and because there was an extensive history of neglectful management by the tenants of their obligations under the headlease. The judge concluded that the relationship between the tenants and their landlord had become dysfunctional and that it should not be re-imposed on the landlord by the grant of relief to the tenants.’
Full story
Tanfield Chambers, 21st August 2015
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘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?”
Hardwicke Chambers, 24th July 2015
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘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.’
Legal Futures, 13th July 2015
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2017