Trawl: Property Law UK Update Info for Newsletter Editors
| Trawl date | 11 December 2023 |
| Article deadline | 18 November 2023 |
Contents – topic areas
- Residential – Landlord & Tenant
- Residential Lease Management
- Residential Leasehold Management
- Residential Property Transactions
- Building Safety Act 2022
- Transactional Issues – Contractual Liability
- Planning
- Restrictive Covenants
- Commercial Property
- Property Transactions
1. Residential – Landlord & Tenant
Holding & Management (Solitaire) Ltd v Leaseholders of Sovereign View [2023] UKUT 174 (LC) (27 July 2023)
LANDLORD AND TENANT – SERVICE CHARGES – consultation requirements – dispensation – relevant prejudice to the leaseholders – appropriateness of conditions attached to dispensation
2. Residential Lease Management
Alma Property Management Ltd v Crompton & Anor [2023] EWCA Civ 849 (19 July 2023)
This appeal from the High Court in Manchester concerns a prominent high-rise building in Salford, partly used as a hotel and partly as residential flats let on long leases. The Appellant (and Claimant below), Alma Property Management Ltd, (“Alma”) is the current freeholder, and brought an action for specific performance of the repairing obligations in the common parts lease. The Receivers counter-claimed for a declaration that Alma had unreasonably refused its consent to an assignment of that lease.
3. Residential Leasehold Management
Avon Ground Rents Ltd v Canary Gateway (Block A) RTM Company Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 616 (30 May 2023)
The question raised by this appeal is whether a “shared ownership lease” granted for a term of more than 21 years is a “long lease” for the purposes of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (“the 2002 Act”) regardless of whether the tenant’s share is 100%. The point turns on the construction of section 76 of the 2002 Act.
4. Residential Property Transactions
Sheffield City Council v Scotfield Group Ltd & Anor [2023] EWHC 990 (Ch) (15 May 2023)
This judgment follows the trial of the Claimant’s Part 8 Claim and the Defendant’s Counterclaim in respect of a contract dated 21 March 2019 (“the contract”) for the sale of land at Hoyle Street, Sheffield (“the site”) where the Claimant was the vendor and the First Defendant was the purchaser.
5. Building Safety Act 2022
Adriatic Land 5 Ltd v Long Leaseholders at Hippersley Point [2023] UKUT 271 (LC) (Decision 13 November 2023)
LANDLORD AND TENANT – SERVICE CHARGES – BUILDING SAFETY ACT 2022 – application for dispensation from consultation requirements – whether a costs condition should have been imposed as a condition of granting dispensation – whether the recovery of the costs of the application, by the service charge, was prevented by paragraph 9 of Schedule 8 to the Building Safety Act 2022 – appeal allowed – decision re-made as a decision to grant dispensation on an unconditional basis, together with a determination that paragraph 9 of Schedule 8 prevented recovery of the costs from tenants holding qualifying leases
URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 772 (03 July 2023)
With 11 files of authorities, ranging from the well-known (Pirelli, Murphy) to the obscure (Tozer Kemsley), and disputes concerning scope of duty, accrual of the cause of action in tort, contribution and the Defective Premises Act 1972 (“DPA”), this appeal had all the hallmarks of a three-day examination in construction law. However, with the assistance of leading counsel on both sides, and the teams that they led, the issues were swiftly identified and then efficiently debated. Perhaps the most important concerned the date of the accrual of a cause of action in tort against designers of a defective building, in circumstances where the defect caused no immediate physical damage. Did the cause of action accrue when the building was completed to the defective design, or when the developers discovered that the buildings were structurally defective?
6. Transactional Issues – Contractual Liability
Andrew Hicks Engineering Ltd v Jenk Associates Ltd & Anor [2023] EWHC 2031 (Ch) (04 August 2023). YES – have we already covered this ?
In September 2008, the Hicks granted a 20-year lease of unit 4 to the claimant. In 2013 the freeholder sold the remainder of the freehold of the estate to the first defendant, whose sole shareholder and director is a Mr Down. Some time thereafter there were discussions between Mr Down and Mr and Mrs Hicks as to terms on which the Hicks and the claimant might relocate and the whole estate be redeveloped as residential property. However, negotiations and indeed relations between the parties broke down, and no agreement was reached.
7. Planning
Humphrey & Anor v Bennett [2023] EWCA Civ 1433 (29 November 2023)
There are two appeals before the Court in a derivative claim (the “Claim”) brought by Neil Humphrey and Fiona Humphrey (“Mr. and Mrs. Humphrey”) against Paul Bennett (“Mr. Bennett”) and his partner, Alison Murphy (“Ms. Murphy”). In the Claim it is alleged that Mr. Bennett and Ms. Murphy breached their statutory and fiduciary duties as directors of Esprit Land Limited (“the Company”) by causing the Company to dispose of a piece of land and diverting an opportunity to acquire an adjoining piece of land to a second company called Esprit Homes Construction Limited (“Construction”) of which Mr. Bennett and Ms. Murphy were directors, and Mr. Bennett was the sole shareholder.
Bennett v Secretary of State for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs [2023] EWHC 2542 (KB) (12 October 2023
Mrs Grace Bennett (“the Claimant”) has since the 1980s lived at Tagmoor Hollow, Marshmouth Lane, Bourton on the Water, Gloucestershire GL54 2EE (“the farm”). Since before living memory a footpath, known as HBW26, has run through the farm. Its original route is not clear. On 15th August 1994 the route of HBW26 was diverted by Order of the predecessor to the Gloucestershire County Council[1] (“the local authority”) and at about that time, or maybe shortly thereafter, a barn was built across part of its route. Henceforth the footpath as diverted in 1994 will be referred to as the existing path.
8. Restrictive Covenants
Muskwe & Anor v Cochrane () [2023] UKUT 262 (LC) (31 October 2023
RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS – MODIFICATION – covenant not to use other than as a single private dwelling house.
9. Commercial Property
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”).
10. Property Transactions
Lenkor Energy Trading DMCC v Puri [2023] EWHC 2979 (KB) (23 November 2023)
A decision concerning the question as to when property purchased in the name of a private company owned (directly or through nominees) by its funder will be owned beneficially by the funder, rather than the company whose shares are owned beneficially by the funder. The question arose in the context of an application for a charging order over properties to secure a judgment debt of over £48 million.
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.
English 