‘The Law Commission is asking flat owners, housebuilders, mortgage lenders and lawyers to help shape a law which could help people own their flats outright. The independent legal body wants views on a little-known and little used home ownership status called commonhold, which provides an alternative to residential leasehold.’
Law Commission, 22nd February 2018
Source: www.lawcom.gov.uk/
‘Since the extent of the issues with the cladding to blocks of flats became clear after Grenfell, and it became clear that private blocks as well as social were affected, we have been waiting for the beginning of the legal fall out over who was to pay for rectifying the problems. For leaseholders in those blocks, this was always going to be a very serious issue.’
Nearly Legal, 4th February 2018
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Campaigners have failed in a long-running legal battle to slash leasehold costs after the court of appeal ruled in favour of a major London freeholder. The case, Mundy v the Sloane Stanley Estate, involved a small flat in Chelsea where the lease had fallen to less than 23 years and the freeholder was seeking £420,000 to agree an extension.’
The Guardian, 24th January 2018
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘One of Britain’s richest men, the Duke of Westminster, could see the value of his estates plummet this week if a landmark legal challenge is successful. The case could also benefit 2m households across England and Wales.’
The Guardian, 14th January 2018
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘In a conflict between a clear scheme of covenants and complimentary service charge machinery, and ambiguous declarations as to the relationship between one of the parties to the lease and a third party, (both contained in the same lease) the scheme takes precedence and is binding on the parties – coherence trumps uncertainty where provisions are in conflict.’
Tanfield Chambers, 8th January 2018
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘Gilpin and ors v Legg [2017] EWHC 3220 (Ch) is a gift (at least to land law examiners) that is going to keep on giving. This is not just because of the claims discussed – whether beach huts were fixtures or chattels, whether a lease had been granted to the owners of the huts, whether the landowner was estopped from obtaining possession, and even certain pleadings issues (the pleadings do seem to have been a little, erm, jejeune) – but also because HHJ Matthews (who I’m ashamed to say I haven’t come across) added his tuppenies to a couple of controversies, not least making some important observations on the correctness of the Supreme Court judgment in Berrisford v Mexfield. Part of the problem in the case was that the events which underpinned the various claims happened over many years, were oral, and, in some cases, involved transfers of title (the issues of which were neatly stepped over by the judge who referred to bona fide purchasers, so we might be dealing with unregistered land, a point not made clear).’
Nearly Legal, 8th January 2018
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Burnley Hall brought a claim for specific performance of a put option agreement. The agreement was part of a broader transaction by which the claimant, a limited liability partnership, entered into a joint venture for the development of student accommodation. The venture was entered into on condition that Business Premises Renovation Allowances (under Part 3A of the Capital Allowances Act 2001) would be available and in the event that they were not, Burnley Hall secured the right to extricate itself from the transaction by exercising a put option to require the defendants to take back the leases they had granted and to repay the sums invested by the individuals behind the LLP.’
Falcon Chambers, 14th November 2017
Source: www.falcon-chambers.com
‘Under section 20B(1) Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, a service charge must be demanded of the tenant within 18 months of the relevant cost having been incurred by the landlord. But what happens when there is a head landlord demanding a charge from an intermediate landlord who, in turn, passes the cost on to their lessees? When does the 18 months run from?’
Nearly Legal, 1st December 2017
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘It is frequently common for lessees to complain that the decision of a landlord to insure the freehold building with a particular insurer or under a particular policy is unreasonable because it is too expensive. Often the complaint is based on the lessee having found an alternative quote that does not include the same level of cover as is deemed necessary by the landlord. Sometimes, however, there are also cases where lessees find “like for like” quotes that are significantly cheaper than that obtained by the landlord. While it is well established that s.19, Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 does not require a landlord to obtain services at the cheapest cost, where there is evidence that the market will generally provide those services at a significantly lower price the First-tier Tribunal is more likely to find that the costs incurred by the landlord are not reasonable.’
Tanfield Chambers, 19th October 2017
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘Prince Charles’s £1bn Duchy of Cornwall estate is facing a rebellion by residents who claim they are subject to an unfair ban on buying the freeholds to their homes.’
The Guardian, 11th September 2017
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The Upper Tribunal upheld the First Tier Tribunal’s decision that units of accommodation designed for students were ‘dwellings’, but overturned the decision that such units were ‘separate dwellings’. As such, the FTT did not have jurisdiction to determine the amount of service charges payable by the units’ leaseholders under sections 18 to 30 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.’
Tanfield Chambers, 31st July 2017
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘The FTT had correctly ruled that a management agreement was for a term of more than twelve months, and therefore a long-term qualifying agreement for the purposes of s.20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.’
Tanfield Chambers, 31st July 2017
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘Builders are to be banned by the government from selling houses as leasehold in England and ground rents on flats could be cut to zero following widespread outrage over exploitative contracts.’
The Guardian, 25th July 2017
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘It is rare, if we are entirely honest, for a First Tier Tribunal decision on service charges to be exciting. It is even rarer for there to be mystery and police raids, and “Immunity from Treason” notices, and debts of “Trillions of pounds”, and something called an ‘equity lawyer’. Yet here they all are, and more, in what on the face of it was a dispute over annual service charges of about £1200.’
Nearly Legal, 23rd July 2017
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘A High Court judge has refused the owners of Coventry City Football Club permission to seek judicial review in their latest state aid challenge over decisions taken by Coventry City Council.’
Local Government Lawyer, 18th July 2017
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Earlier this year in the US, a legal case revolved around the use of an Oxford comma. Not to be outdone, last month the Court of Appeal in England & Wales had to determine the meaning of the word ‘or’; in doing so, they embarked upon a semantic analysis of one of the most common words in the English language, flavoured by the Supreme Court’s most recent case on construction of contracts.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 15th June 2017
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘On 29 June 2017 the Court of Appeal gave judgment on an interesting question of statutory construction concerning the valuation provisions in section 9 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (“LRA67”) and the Interpretation Act 1978 (“the Interpretation Act”).’
Tanfield Chambers, 29th June 2017
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘Leases generally require leaseholders to contribute to insurance of their block – whether by including the cost in the general service charges or by way of a separate charge known as an “insurance rent”.’
Tanfield Chambers, 22nd June 2017
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024