‘The guarantor of an insolvent commercial tenant cannot be held liable for outstanding obligations if changes were made to the lease without its consent which had the “potential” to increase the burden on the guarantor, the Court of Appeal has confirmed.’
OUT-LAW.com, 23rd January 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
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
‘The right to manage provisions in Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 have been an incredibly fertile source of litigation. Thanks Parliament. No, really, thanks a lot. One reason might be the drafting of the legislation itself (as J has said, you could never accuse it of being user friendly) The challenges have focused on the two key elements – the qualifying criteria (or what I am loosely calling “qualifying criteria”) and the procedural requirements. The judicial trend in respect of both has been in favour of allowing the right to manage to be acquired, so far as possible (Exhibit 1 for qualifying criteria: Gala Unity v Ariadne Road; Exhibit 2 for procedure: Avon Freeholds v Regent Court RTM).’
NearlyLegal, 16th December 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
“The serving of a bad or defective notice has produced a wealth of litigation over the years. The fact that no-one has been misled, confused or in any way disadvantaged has never deterred those who want to take the point, particularly where the stakes are high. And, they are usually not higher where commercial leases are concerned and the tenant wants to break the lease. Where there may be grotesquely disproportionate and serious consequences for the party (or its adviser) who gets it wrong, a range of different responses has evolved in order for the courts to produce a more just outcome.”
Hardwicke Chambers, 4th November 2013
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
“A tenant’s option to determine a commercial lease (a ‘break clause’) is a common feature of the modern landlord and tenant relationship. As a result of the weak economy and the ability of tenants to determine unilaterally an unfavourable lease on terms, there have recently been a number of reported decisions concerning the disputed exercise of break clauses. The typical interests in conflict have been described in Canonical UK Ltd v TST Millbank LLC [2012] EWHC 3710 (Ch) by Vos J (para 3): ‘This is a hard case for both sides. The tenant company … needs to know if it has successfully broken the lease because its future business depends on using its resources elsewhere. The landlord in these poor economic times seeks to use any argument it properly can to keep its building tenanted.'”
Full story (PDF)
New Square Chambers, 31st October 2013
Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk
“A recent High Court decision should act as a reminder to both landlords and
tenants that the frequent practice of the tenant continuing in occupation of
commercial premises (holding over) after the expiry of some leases can lead to
unexpected consequences, an expert has said.”
OUT-LAW.com, 18th October 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“At least less risky for property investors. That is the basis of the Upper Tribunal’s decision in Voyvoda v Grosvenor West End Properties, which we have managed to miss reporting because of the Summer break.”
NearlyLegal, 3rd September 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
“Sometimes the draftsman gets it wrong. Sometimes his only mistake is to fail to predict the future. Either way a landlord can face a serious shortfall if the combined percentages of service charges payable under the leases for the block do not add up to 100%. While at first blush, the landlord’s shortfall is the tenants’ windfall, defective leases can seem a much less attractive prospect if the result is that the landlord is reluctant to provide services.”
Full story (PDF)
Tanfield Chambers, 27th July 2013
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
DV3 RS Ltd Partnership v Revenue and Customs Comrs [2013] EWCA Civ 907; [2013] WLR (D) 311
“Where a vendor contracted to sell a chargeable interest to a company and the company made a sub-sale to a partnership (of which the company was a member), both contracts being completed at the same time with sequential transfers, the partnership, as taxpayer, acquired a chargeable interest liable to stamp duty land tax.”
WLR Daily, 25th July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The Court of Appeal has ruled against a stamp duty land tax (SDLT) avoidance scheme involving the interaction of the sub-sale and partnership rules, overturning earlier decisions by the First Tier and Upper Tax Tribunals.”
OUT-LAW.com, 30th July 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“A recent case in the Chancery Division is the latest in a series concerning payment of rent as a condition of exercising a break clause: Marks & Spencer Plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Co (Jersey) Ltd [2013] EWHC 1279; [2013] 22 EG 92. In this series of cases, tenants have sought to overcome the apparent unfairness of paying quarterly rent due in advance as a condition of exercising a break clause part way through a quarter, leading to an overpayment of rent when compared pro rata to the period of actual occupancy.”
Hardwicke Chambers, 15th July 2013
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
“A new consolidated property tribunal came into existence today with a single set of procedural rules aimed at simplifying the process.”
Law Society’s Gazette, 1st July 2013
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
“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.”
NearlyLegal, 25th June 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
“Where there were intermediate leases which subsisted between the freehold and the leases of the participating tenants and which were to be acquired by the nominee purchaser on the collective enfranchisement, and a single owner of those leases or of those leases and the freehold could realise development value by developing the property for use other than as a building containing separate flats, the hope of realising such development value had to be taken into account in fixing the price to be paid for the intermediate leases.”
WLR Daily, 19th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Granting a licence for alterations without the consent of the guarantor can be enough to discharge the guarantor’s liability under the lease, the High Court has said.”
OUT-LAW.com, 18th June 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“In Avon Estates (London) Limited v Sinclair Gardens Investments (Kensington) Limited [2013] UKUT 0264 (LC) [not online yet we have a transcript] the Upper Tribunal considered the question of whether an insurance premium had been reasonable incurred.”
NearlyLegal, 11th June 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
“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.”
NearlyLegal, 3rd June 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
“The entrepreneurialisation of social housing over the last twenty years has led to a diversity in the types of shared ownership. Of course, the standard leasehold type (what in the old days was called DIYSO) predominates, but there are a multitude of other types. In Ker v Optima Community Association [2013] EWCA Civ 579, the Court of Appeal had to deal with one of these other types in Optima’s claim for possession; but in quite odd circumstances for, by the time of the hearing of the appeal, Ms Ker had accepted that the property was unaffordable for her so that she had to give up possession. What was in issue seems to have been whether she was entitled to return of some of the amounts she had paid. Patten LJ, who gave the only substantive judgment, held that she did not have such a claim and ordered possession.”
NearlyLegal, 25th May 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
“Residents of mobile home parks in England have been given new rights to protect them from rogue site operators.”
BBC News, 27th May 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024