Trawl: Property Law UK Update Info for Newsletter Editors
| Trawl date | 10th February 2025 |
| Article deadline | 19th February 2025 |
Contents – topic areas
- Residential – Landlord & Tenant
- Residential Leasehold
- Residential Lease Management
- Residential Conveyancing
- Business Lease Renewal
- Commercial Property
- Building Safety Act
- Property Transactions
- Compliance
- Property Litigation
- Boundaries and Adverse Possession
- Rights of Way
- Nuisance and Trespass
- Highways
1. Residential – Landlord & Tenant
Ata v Sinclair [2024] UKUT 423 (LC) (20 December 2024)
LANDLORD & TENANT – APPOINTMENT OF MANAGER – contents of notice under sec.22 Landlord and Tenant Act 1986 – purpose of setting out matters relied upon by tenant – reasonable time for remediation – manager’s conflict of interest).
Avon Freeholds Ltd v Cresta Court E RTM Company Ltd [2024] UKUT 335 (LC) (28 Oct 2024)
LANDLORD AND TENANT – RIGHT TO MANAGE – can a tenant under a long equitable lease be a qualifying tenant – construction of s.79(3) Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 and the effect of procedural failings.
Ferko v Ealing Magistrates Court & Ors [2024] EWHC 2592 (Admin) (14 October 2024).
Mr Ferko was the assured shorthold tenant of a flat. The prosecution was brought against the owners of the flat, and the property management company which was the intermediate lessee of the flat. In January 2022, Mr F’s solicitors wrote to the Respondents by way of notice under section 82 and 79 EPA, stating that they were responsible for:
- a) A nuisance, due to the presence of damp and mould in the property;
b) Condensation associated mould growth in the back addition bedroom, bathroom, kitchen and living room;
c) A damp stain to the landing ceiling adjacent to the back addition bedroom;
d) A defective bathroom extractor fan which was exacerbating condensation and contributing to mould growth in the property;
e) A lack of insulation in the loft which was exacerbating condensation and associated mould growth;
f) A failed sealed glazing unit to the landing window.
Nothing was done and the information was laid. The defendants pleaded not guilty, so it went to trial.
Rahimi v City of Westminster Council [2024] EWCA Civ 73 (05 February 2024).
Court of Appeal considers whether actions of a landlord and joint tenants could lead to an inference that a joint tenancy had been surrendered and regranted as a new sole tenancy.
2. Residential Leasehold
A1 Properties (Sunderland) Ltd v Tudor Studios RTM Company Ltd [2024] UKSC 27 (16 August 2024).
This appeal is concerned with the operation of the regime in the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (“the CLRA”) under which qualifying tenants may acquire the right to take over the management of their block of flats through the formation and interposition of a right to manage (“RTM”) company.
3. Residential Lease Management
Triplark Ltd v Maunder-Taylor [2025] EWHC 45 (Ch) (15 January 2025).
The case arose from disputes over the management of Northwood Hall, a residential property owned by Triplark Limited. Mr Maunder-Taylor served as a statutory manager under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. The litigation focused on alleged breaches of trust and improper use of service charge funds during his management, with Triplark seeking to recover substantial sums.Central to the case were questions about the applicability of res judicata and whether previous judgments against Mr Maunder-Taylor could bind Triplark, who was not a party to those proceedings. The court examined the principles of trust law, including the statutory trust under s. 42 of the LTA 1987, and the potential application of s. 61 of the Trustee Act 1925, which allows for relief from liability for trustees acting reasonably and honestly.
Lea & Ors v GP Ilfracombe Management Company Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 1241 (22 October 2024).
This is an appeal by Kathryn Lea and other leaseholders of properties at Ilfracombe Holiday Park (“the appellants”) against the order of the First Tier Tribunal Property Chamber (“FtT”), subsequently upheld by the Upper Tribunal Lands Chamber (“UT”), refusing them their costs of proceedings in which they defeated in its entirety the claim for £2.4 million by way of service charge brought against them by the managing agents, GP Ilfracombe Management Company Limited (“GPIMC”). Permission to bring a second appeal was granted by my lord, Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, on 26 January 2024.
The appeal raises two issues. The first concerns the appropriate test to be applied in circumstances where, as here, one party claims that the other has acted unreasonably and should therefore pay the costs of proceedings which would otherwise be ‘costs-neutral’. The second is whether, on an application of the applicable test, the FTT erred in law in concluding that GPIMC did not act unreasonably and were therefore not liable to pay the appellants’ costs.
4. Residential Conveyancing
Together Commercial Finance Ltd v Fay of London Ltd [2025] EWHC 12 (Ch) (08 January 2025).
The High Court determined that a claim for possession was not disputed on grounds which appeared to be substantial, and made a possession order.
The question arose in the context of an application by a tenant company to amend its pleading and to add an additional defendant (Ms P, the occupier of the flat) in a possession claim brought by a mortgagee. The tenant company sought to assert that Ms P had an overriding interest binding on the lender as a result of proprietary estoppel or a common intention constructive trust; the result would be that the mortgage would be a regulated mortgage granted by an unregulated entity, and as a consequence, unenforceable subject to the court’s discretion.
Raja & Anor v ATM Law & Ors [2024] EWHC 2782 (Ch) (08 November 2024).
The claimants, Mohammed Khalid Raja and Saira Zeenat Raja, challenged a charging order placed on their property at 45 Morrab Gardens, Ilford. The third defendant, Mohammad Ghazanfar, was a judgment creditor of Mr. Raja, seeking to enforce a debt through this order.
The claimants argued that Mr. Raja had no beneficial interest in the property, presenting a trust deed allegedly executed in 2008. This deed purportedly transferred Mr. Raja’s interest to his wife and children.
Yeomans v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs [2024] UKFTT 955 (TC) (24 October 2024).
The applicant, Thomas Yeomans, purchased a residential property in Sittingbourne, Kent, jointly with his wife for £895,000. Initially, no MDR was claimed on the SDLT return, and £34,750 was paid. Later, a reclaim for £10,000 was submitted, asserting MDR applicability, which HMRC rejected after an enquiry and internal review.
5. Business Lease Renewal
AP Wireless II (UK) Ltd v On Tower UK Ltd [2024] UKUT 429 (LC) (18 December 2024)
ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS CODE – Jurisdiction – Paragraph 33(1) of the Code – Meaning of “an operator … who is a party to a code agreement” – whether assignee of the benefit of a licence which is a subsisting code agreement is such a party – whether assignee must first have covenanted with the site provider to perform the licence obligations
ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS CODE – Paragraph 33(1) of the Code – Meaning of “an operator … who is a party to a code agreement” – purported assignment of lease of site – whether assignee discharged burden of proving title to lease.
6. Commercial Property
Hawkwell House Hotel Ltd & Anor v Pirie & Anor [2024] EWHC 3284 (Ch) (18 December 2024).
The case involved a dispute between the appellants, who operate a hotel, and the respondents, owners of a neighbouring property, over a wall separating their properties. The wall had become unstable due to a build-up of earth on the hotel’s side, which was not designed to act as a retaining wall. After part of the wall collapsed, urgent repairs were made, but the respondents initiated legal action to address the ongoing risk.
The primary legal issue was whether a mandatory injunction requiring the hotel to permanently reduce the height of the earth on its side of the wall was justified. The court had to consider whether damages would be an adequate remedy or if an injunction was necessary to prevent further nuisance. The court also evaluated the feasibility and cost of two proposed solutions: the Garden Wall Solution, which involved reducing the earth height, and the Retaining Wall Solution, which involved reinforcing the wall to support the existing earth height.
Al Saleh & Anor v Croydon Estates Ltd [2025] EWHC 99 (KB) (22 January 2025)
The case involved a dispute over the possession of a commercial property at 190 Edgware Road, London, and related monetary claims. The Respondent, Croydon Estates Limited (CEL), sought possession due to arrears accrued during the lease period and subsequent informal agreements. The Appellants, Ammar Al Saleh and Swalih Ltd, were among the defendants in the original trial where CEL was awarded possession and monetary judgments against them. The Appellants contested the findings, arguing mischaracterisation of payments and an estoppel based on an alleged informal agreement for a new lease.
The primary legal issues revolved around the identification of the tenant during the relevant periods, the calculation of arrears, and the validity of the informal agreement alleged by the Appellants. The High Court examined whether the lower court erred in its findings regarding the tenant at will, the allocation of payments, and the entitlement to forfeit the lease. The court also addressed the estoppel argument raised by the Appellants, which was not presented at trial.
Butt v Butt & Ors [2024] EWHC 3222 (Ch) (12 December 2024).
Judgment to determine the beneficial ownership of the shareholding in and, perhaps more importantly, the ultimate control of M&B Properties (Nottingham) Ltd (“the Company”), which owns the freehold title of the Adco Business Centre, Bobbersmill, Nottingham, NG8 5AH (“the Centre”).
Corfield v Howard [2024] EWHC 2727 (Comm) (30 October 2024).
The original proceedings stemmed from a legal business partnership between Mr. Corfield and Ms. Howard, involving the buying and letting of residential properties. The partnership dissolved, leading to a dispute over the division of assets and liabilities.
7. Building Safety Act
Redrow PLC & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities [2024] EWCA Civ 651 (21 May 2024).
This is an appeal against the order of Garnham J (“the judge”) dated 7 July 2023, in which he dismissed the appellants’ renewed application for permission to bring judicial review proceedings to challenge the respondent’s decision, dated 26 August 2022, to allocate funds from the Building Safety Fund (“BSF”) to the interested parties. This allocation was made in order that major cladding remedial works could be carried out to two high-rise developments which the appellants had developed/built. If the decision was lawful, the appellants are prima facie liable to reimburse those sums to the BSF, currently estimated at £30 million. The appeal raises issues as to the proper operation of the BSF.
8. Property Transactions
Weston Homes PLC v Henley Developments 211 Ltd & Anor [2024] EWHC 3286 (Ch) (19 December 2024).
The case involved a contract dated 21st June 2022, where Weston Homes PLC agreed to purchase freehold property from Henley Developments 211 Limited, with Henley Property Investments (UK) LLP as guarantor. The purchase price was £14,500,000, with a deposit of £870,000. The contract included provisions for termination if certain conditions were not met by specific dates. Weston sought repayment of the deposit after terminating the contract due to unmet conditions, while Henley argued that Weston’s breach caused the delay.
The primary legal issue was whether Weston could terminate the contract under clause 23.2.1 and recover the deposit, despite allegations of its breach. The court examined the contract’s language and the ‘Breach of Contract Principle,’ which suggests a party cannot benefit from its own breach. The court also considered whether an implied term should prevent Weston from terminating the contract due to its breach.
Boulden and Boulden v. Boler and Boler.
In Boulden and Boulden v Boler and Boler (Case number: Ref 2023/0557) the First Tier Tribunal, Property Chamber Land Registration (Judge Ewan Paton) (“the Tribunal”), had to decide an opposed application by Mr and Mrs Boulden under section 9(2) of the Act to be registered as proprietors with title absolute of unregistered freehold land known as Land at Bonnington Pinn (“the Application Land”).
Palmer & Anor v Sans (Re Insolvency Act 1986) [2024] EWHC 2685 (Ch) (08 November 2024)
The applicants, Julie Palmer and Andrew Hook, acting as joint Trustees-in-Bankruptcy for Shaun Collins, sought various orders under the Insolvency Act 1986 regarding a property transfer to Daniel Sans. The central issue was whether Collins held the property on trust for Sans when acquired in 2013.
The case revolved around the property, Flat 2, Chestnut House, London, and whether Collins was merely a legal owner with Sans holding the beneficial interest. The property was initially owned by Sans’ grandmother, Ms. Newby, who sold it under circumstances suggesting a trust agreement.
Blower v GH Canfields LLP [2024] EWHC 2763 (Ch) (04 November 2024).
This is a judgment on the trial of a claim in professional negligence brought by the claimant (i) in her own right, and (ii) as assignee of the rights of her daughter Kelly Blower (under a deed of assignment dated 31 January 2021), in respect of professional services supplied by the defendant firm of solicitors. The services related to the mediation in 2015 of proceedings brought or threatened to be brought by Paul Allen, the trustee in bankruptcy of the claimant’s husband, John Blower. The trustee’s claims against the claimant and her daughter concerned alleged transactions at an undervalue. At the conclusion of the mediation, a settlement agreement was entered into between the trustee on the one hand and the claimant, her husband and their two daughters (Kelly and Natalie) on the other. The claimant now alleges that the defendant was negligent in the conduct of its retainer, in particular with regard to entering into the settlement, and caused her and her daughter Kelly loss. She further alleges that, if they had been properly advised, they would never have agreed to the settlement agreement signed on their behalf.
Allen v Webster [2024] EWHC 988 (Ch) (29 April 2024).
By an order dated 13 March 2023 (the “Order”), Recorder Maguire (the “Judge”), sitting at the County Court at Central London, declared that the property known as at situate at Tyndale Villas, Sartar Road, Nunhead, London SE15 3BB (the “Property”) was held by the Appellant and Respondent upon trust for them as tenants in common in the following terms: 8% for the Appellant; and 92% for the Respondent.
The central issue on this appeal is whether the Judge correctly declared the beneficial interest in the Property as vesting 92% in the Respondent and 8% in the Appellant.
Conway v Conway & Anor [2024] EW Misc 19 (CC) (31 May 2024).
The sole or principal issue in this case is whether the Defendants are entitled to require the Claimant to transfer the property known as “the Barn”, which is part of a much larger property that the Claimant owns known as Church Farm, Hospital Lane in Bedworth, CV12 OJZ, to the Defendants.
9. Compliance
Norman v N & CJ Horton Property [2024] EWHC 2994 (Ch) (29 November 2024).
Alexander Cook KC and Josh O’Neill acted for the Claimants in the Crump Claim, bringing an application for strike and/or summary judgment in respect of the Defendants’ money laundering defence. The application was heard alongside two related applications by the same Defendants to amend their pleadings in ancillary proceedings to include this defence of money laundering.
10. Property Litigation
Rollerteam Ltd v Riley & Anor [2024] EWHC 2736 (Ch) (30 October 2024).
The claimant, Rollerteam Limited, was involved in a dispute with the first defendant, Linda Riley, over a trust deed dated 11 April 2013. This deed concerned a property at 1 Parkgate Road, Battersea, which Linda held on trust for Rollerteam.
Connell & Anor v Connell [2024] EWHC 2646 (Ch) (18 October 2024).
The case involves a dispute over the ownership and beneficial interest in a property. The claimants, Mr. and Mrs. Connell, contend that they hold a beneficial interest in a property legally owned by Mr. Connell’s brother, Mr. Connell.
Rarity Holdings Ltd v Parkhill [2024] EWHC 1637 (Ch) (27 June 2024)
This case involved a dispute between Rarity Holdings Ltd and David Samuel Parkhill concerning the validity of a property sale contract and the return of a deposit.
Sully & Ors v Mazur & Anor [2024] EWHC 1999 (KB) (02 August 2024)
The Claimants are siblings. Sunhill House, a property in rural Sussex, was in the Claimants’ family for many years. It was occupied by the Claimants’ parents until they moved to Somerset in late August 2023. They sought a buyer and, after one sale fell through, they eventually succeeded in selling it in March 2024. The Defendants live in a nearby property, Rystwood Lodge. Between the two properties is a field (‘the Field’). This too has been in the Claimants’ family for many years and is presently owned by the Claimants, who would like to sell it. They allow a local person to graze sheep on it. The only vehicular access to the Field is from the driveway to Rystwood Lodge (the Drive) via a gate close to the beginning of the Drive. The Drive is owned by the Defendants but the owners of the Field have a right of way over it. The Drive also serves another property, Rystwood Acre.
The Defendants are strongly opposed to the Field being built on for housing. The Claimants say they have never wished to build on the Field but the Defendants are concerned that they will sell it to someone who does. As long ago as March 2021, the Defendants wrote to the Claimants stating, “we will do whatever it takes to protect the value of our estate”. The Claimants’ parents offered to sell the Field to the Defendants but negotiations broke down.
11. Boundaries and Adverse Possession
Van Zyl & Anor v Walker-Smith [2025] EWHC 136 (Ch) (27 January 2025)
The case involved a boundary dispute between neighbours in Claygate, Surrey, who were leaseholders of adjacent maisonettes. The dispute centered on the boundary line between their respective gardens. The appellants, leaseholders of the first-floor property (No 36), challenged the boundary determination made by the lower court, which favored the respondent, the ground-floor leaseholder (No 34). The boundary dispute arose after the appellants removed a hedge and repositioned a fence, claiming more land than previously demarcated by the hedge.
12. Rights of Way
Price v Nunn [2023] EWHC 3200 (Ch) (19 December 2023)
This judgment follows the trial in a neighbours’ dispute over a right of way which has a litigation life of almost half a century. The dispute as now presented carries with it a procedural narrative and the consequences of six earlier, detailed judicial decisions which bear closely upon the remaining issues that now fall to be determined by me. This highly unusual background adds a degree of complexity and certainly length to this judgment which follows the trial of those issues. Despite the factually contentious claim about a “prescriptive right of way” having disappeared just before the trial, the intricacy of some of those issues is further enhanced by the need for the court, in 2023, to do its best to analyse what the line and status of the track in question might have been some two-and-a-quarter centuries ago.
13. Nuisance and Trespass
AIUL v Alex Wainwright and Persons Unknown [2023] 5 WLUK 613
The case concerns the court’s finding that continuing to fly a drone over private property amounted to trespass.
14. Highways
Zipfell, R (On the Application Of) v Norfolk County Council [2024] EWHC 3301 (Admin) (18 December 2024).
The applicant purchased The Mill, including a bridge, in 2020. The bridge, built circa 1790, is part of a road maintained publicly since 1929. The applicant argued the bridge should also be maintained at public expense, citing s.328 of the Highway Act 1980. The bridge has historically been privately maintained, and the applicant faced challenges insuring it. The case was brought to resolve maintenance responsibilities.
The primary legal issue was whether s.328(2) of the Highway Act 1980 meant that a bridge carrying a publicly maintained highway is itself publicly maintainable. The applicant relied on Kent County Council v DRG Packaging, which suggested such an interpretation. The court examined the statutory framework, including historical context and legislative intent, to determine the correct interpretation of ‘highway’ and the implications for maintenance obligations.
English 