May 2024
Trawl: Property Law UK Update Info for Newsletter Editors
| Trawl date | 08 May 2024 |
| Article deadline | 17 May 2024 |
Contents – topic areas
- Residential – Landlord & Tenant
- Residential Lease Management
- Commercial Property
- Property Transactions
- Property Litigation
- Rights of Way
1. Residential – Landlord & Tenant
Clemente v Mindmere Ltd (Rev1) [2024] UKUT 50 (LC) (20 February 2024).
ADMINISTRATION CHARGE – recovery of costs as an administration charge when incurred “for the purpose of and incidental to the preparation and service of a notice under section 146 of the Law of Property Act 1925” – whether the issue of proceedings for a money judgment for unpaid service charges amounts to waiver of the right to forfeit for failure to pay those charges.
2. Residential Lease Management
Assethold Ltd v Eveline Road RTM Company Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 187 (04 March 2024).
36 Eveline Road, Mitcham (“No 36”) was originally two terraced houses. They have been converted into four flats, two of which are contained in each of the original terraced houses. The lessees of the four flats have established a right to manage company (the “RTM company”) with a view to acquiring the right to manage (the “RTM”) the four flats. Although No 36 is not itself structurally detached (since it shares a party wall with No 38), it falls within the definition of “premises” in section 72 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (“the 2002 Act”). But each of the original terraced houses also falls within that definition. The question posed by this appeal is whether the RTM company is entitled to acquire No 36 as a whole; or whether two RTM companies must be formed, and separate claims made in respect of each original terraced house.
Howe Properties (NE) Ltd v Accent Housing Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 297 (27 March 2024)
This appeal concerns service charges in relation to properties on an estate that includes The Meadowings and Sheepfoote Hill in Yarm, near Stockton-on-Tees (the “Estate”). Howe is the long leaseholder of four properties on the Estate (the properties and the appeal relates to the terms of three of its leases (the “Leases”).
The issue is whether the terms of the Leases entitle the appellant landlord (“Accent”), which manages the Estate, to levy an annual service charge which includes a fee for management services which is set by it on a standardised basis in respect of all its properties nationwide.
3. Commercial Property
Valbonne Estates Ltd v United Homes Ltd [2024] EWHC 876 (Ch) (18 April 2024).
The principal issue raised on the applications before the court is the circumstances in which a contract for the assignment of a lease, containing a requirement for the consent of the landlord to any such assignment, is capable of being specifically enforceable before that consent has been given.
The claim concerns the leasehold interest in the property known as the Beckton Arms, Beckton Road, London E16 1PY (“the Property”). The freeholder is the London Borough of Newham (“Newham”). By a contract of sale dated 14 January 2015 (“the 2015 Contract”), Cityvalue Estates Limited (“Cityvalue”) entered into a contract for the sale of the property to the claimant (“Valbonne”), for the price of £495,000. The contract provided for a deposit of £24,750, with a stipulation that 10% of the purchase price at all times remained due. The stated Completion Date was 27 February 2015.
Peachside Ltd v Lee & Anor [2024] EWHC 921 (TCC) (23 April 2024)
This is a terminal dilapidations case in relation to a business tenancy concerning part of a former textile warehouse in the Chinatown area of central Manchester known as and located at 33 George Street and 14 Nicholas Street, Manchester (“the property”). The claimant granted the defendants a business tenancy for a Chinese restaurant in Manchester in 2003. The defendants contended that the claimant’s intention was to extract money through dilapidations claims as the premises were not realistically lettable as office space without resolving access issues. The claimant sought judgment against the defendants for £542,671.17 for dilapidations.
The Royal Borough of Kensington And Chelsea v Mellcraft Ltd [2024] EWHC 539 (Ch) (11 March 2024)
This is an appeal against an order of His Honour Judge Monty KC made in the Central London County Court on 11th December 2020. By that order (“the Order”), Judge Monty determined two preliminary issues in the action. The first determination was that the Respondent occupied the certain property for the purposes, or partly for the purposes of its business at the date of expiry of the contractual term of the Respondent’s lease of that property The second determination was that the Appellant had failed to satisfy the ground of opposition in paragraph (g) of Section 30(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (“the Act”).
Pincus v Johal & Anor [2024] EWHC 502 (Ch) (08 March 2024).
Judgment on an application by the claimant by notice in this matter dated 14 July 2023. The claim in which it is made was begun by claim form issued on 19 August 2022. It alleges that the defendants have wrongfully interfered with a right of way vested in the claimant to entitle him to use a concrete platform situated on the second defendant’s land at 19 Millicent Road, Leyton, London E10, so as to access an entrance to his own next-door commercial premises at 21 Millicent Road. The first defendant is concerned in the management of the second defendant, and therefore of the land. The application currently before me is for an order that the claimant be permitted to enter on the defendants’ land to reinstate the concrete platform. I shall return to that in due course, but first I will deal with the background to the matter and the procedural aspects of the claim.
Abbas v Hussain & Ors [2023] EWHC 2322 (Ch) (19 September 2023).
This case concerns a claim relating to the beneficial ownership of a development property being the western half (“the Disputed Property”) of the former Tilt Hammer Inn, Alum Rock Road, Birmingham, B8 1Ll and 4-6 Adderley Road, Saltley, Birmingham, B8 1ED (together “Tilt Hammer”).
4. Property Transactions
Niprose Investments Ltd & Ors v Vincents Solicitors Ltd (Professional negligence) [2024] EWHC 801 (Ch) (17 April 2024).
Professional negligence – Solicitors – Defendants’ application for strike out or summary judgment – Defendants acted for purchasers of 50 residential units in a buyer-funded, off-plan development scheme – Purchasers losing their substantial up-front payments on failure of development and suing their conveyancing solicitors for breach of duty – Extent of duty on purchasers’ solicitors – Whether duty to advise that deposit-holding machinery offered no meaningful protection – Whether duty to advise purchasers against risks of investing in development – Whether duty to ensure advice fully understood – Whether solicitors in breach of duty – Whether loss of purchasers’ investments legally attributable to any breach of duty – Whether claim sufficiently pleaded – Whether purchasers’ claims should be struck out or summary judgment entered for defendant solicitors.
39 Fitzjons Avenue Ltd v Revenue And Customs [2024] UKFTT 28 (TC) (4 January 2024)
STAMP DUTY LAND TAX-whether property”mixed use”-railway tunnel ventilation shaft and steel fence on the land-rights of way- building and other restrictions-workshop in house occupied on completion-whether used or suitable for use as a dwelling.
Brem v Clark & Anor [2023] EWHC 1358 (KB) (16 June 2023.
At the heart of the claim is an issue relating to the back garden. It is the claimant’s case that, whilst a tenant, he had enjoyed the use of the whole of the back garden area and that he understood that it was all to be part of the property conveyed to him. However, it is the defendants’ case that the area of garden to be purchased and conveyed was truncated, with a fence demarcating the area being purchased by the claimant. It is the claimant’s case that the value of the property as actually conveyed, with the truncated garden, was £307,000, £18,000 less than the amount he paid and this is the sum he claims against the second defendant. In addition, there are other claims against the first defendant: reinstatement of the full garden; £6,000 paid for access which was not granted; £2,000 paid for money expended by the claimant in clearing the garden and £8,000 being the cost of repairs to the house, a total of £16,000 of asserted losses which were not connected with the claim in respect of the value of the house.
5. Property Litigation
Martell v Roszkowski & Ors [2024] EWHC 840 (TCC) (16 April 2024).
The Claimant, Miss Perdita Martell, seeks damages for the cost of remedial work to her property that she claims was required as a result of the Defendants’ breaches of contract and/or breaches of tortious duties. The First Defendant, Mr Grzegorz Roszkowski and the Second Defendant, Mr Slawomir Walczak, who traded together as GS Building Services (GSB), are builders. The Third Defendant, Martin Gustyn & Associates Limited (MGA), provided structural engineering services to Miss Martell.
Walker v Somboonsarn [2024] EWHC 919 (Ch) (26 April 2024)
This is a dispute between mother (the Claimant) and son (the Defendant) as to the ownership of three companies (the “Companies”) (or the shares in those Companies) and the ownership of four properties (the “Properties”).
Rofail v Hassanin [2024] EWHC 964 (KB) (25 April 2024).
In or about March 2014, Mr Hassanin approached Mr Rofail and requested a personal loan to enable him to purchase the property at 91 Mackenzie Road, London N7 which he was then renting from the local authority, the London Borough of Islington (“LB Islington”). Mr Hassanin requested a loan in the sum of £390,000. Mr Hassanin had explained that because this was a council property, he could buy it at a very good discount. Mr Hassanin explained that the terms of his purchase from the council would prevent him from selling the property for the first five years after purchase, but that at the end of five years he proposed to sell the property at a good profit. When he did, he would repay the money loaned to him by Mr Rofail.
Mr Rofail says that he agreed to loan the sum. The terms of the loan were that the funds would be used for the purchase of 91 Mackenzie Road, and that the loan would become immediately repayable in full on its sale. The agreement was a verbal one: given his trust in Mr Hassanin, he did not need the agreement to be written down. Mr Hassanin was working for him, they were friends, and Mr Rofail trusted him. Nor did Mr Rofail seek to charge any interest on the loan: he did not need any interest as he was a wealthy man. He said they both knew exactly what the agreement was.
At the centre of the dispute lies a transfer of £390,000 that Mr Rofail made to Mr Hassanin on 8 April 2014. Both agree that such a transfer was made, but each gives an entirely different account as to the circumstances surrounding it. In short summary, Mr Rofail says that it was a loan to Mr Hassanin, to assist him in buying a house. Mr Hassanin says that it was not a loan, but that it was a payment due to him under a profit share agreement, pursuant to which Mr Hassanin was entitled to 25% of the net profits from various property development projects upon which he had worked for Mr Rofail as a project manager.
Ahmet v Tatum & Anor [2024] EWCA Civ 255 (15 March 2024).
The appeal relates to the ownership of a property known as Brindles Farmhouse (“Brindles Farmhouse”) in Brindles Close, Hutton, Brentwood. The first respondent, Mr David Tatum, is the registered proprietor of the property but Ms Ahmet contends that she has a beneficial interest in it.
6. 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.
English 