‘The UT comprised of Holgate J and HHJ Hodge QC (also sitting as County Court judges) gave valuable guidance concerning the importance of judges maintaining jurisdictional clarity and seperation when sitting as both FTT judges and County Court judges under the Residential Property Dispute Deployment Pilot.’
Tanfield Chambers, 5th October 2018
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘A not infrequent problem for leaseholders is a landlord who takes a lackadaisical approach to enforcing leasehold covenants, or worse yet allows or waives breaches of covenants by certain leaseholders.’
Nearly Legal, 24th October 2018
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Having previously blogged on this case (see here for that blog on Egon Zehnder Ltd v Tillman [2017] EWHC 1278 (Ch)), Jacques Algazy QC and Nathaniel Caiden consider the repercussions of the Court of Appeal judgment in Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 1054.’
Cloisters, 12th October 2017
Source: www.cloisters.com
‘While the Supreme Court’s decision in Birch v Birch [2017] UKSC 53 is ostensibly about the court’s power to vary undertakings, it provides useful broader guidance on the variation of family orders generally.’
Law Society's Gazette, 2nd October 2017
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘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
© Inner Temple Library 2024