Trawl: Property Law UK Update Info for Newsletter Editors
| Trawl date | 08 February 2024 |
| Article deadline | 19 February 2024 |
Contents – topic areas
- Residential – Landlord & Tenant
- Residential Lease Management
- Residential Leasehold Management
- Building Safety Act 2022
- Transactional Issues – Contractual Liability
- Commercial Property
- Property Transactions
- Boundaries and Adverse Possession
- Co-ownership and Estoppel
- Rights of Way
1. Residential – Landlord & Tenant
Rahimi v City of Westminster Council [2024] EWCA Civ 73 (05 February 2024)
The issue on this appeal is whether Mr Rahimi is entitled to succeed to a secure tenancy of Flat 5, Brackley Court, Pollitt Drive in the City of Westminster on the death of his grandmother, Mrs Hussain. That, in turn, depends on whether at the date of her death, Mrs Hussain was the tenant under a tenancy of the flat granted to her alone. Although Westminster CC had originally granted the tenancy to her and her husband, Mr Kazam, as joint tenants, at the date of Mrs Hussain’s death Mr Kazam was no longer living there.
7 McKinley Road, Bournemouth, Dorset BH4 8AG: CHI/00HN/LDC/2023/0164
To dispense with the requirement to consult lessees about major works section 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
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
Flat 1, Castle Place, Castle Square, Bletchingley, Surrey, RH1 4LB : CHI/43UF/LSC/2023/0075
The Applicant seeks and following a transfer from the County Court the Tribunal is required to make, a determination of service charges under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The amount claimed in respect of service charges is £50,560.40.
4. Building Safety Act 2022
9 Sutton Court Road, Sutton, Surrey, SM1 4FQ: LON/00BF/HYI/2022/0002.
Building Safety Act 2022 s.124
Canary Riverside Estate, Westferry Circus, London E14: LON/00BG/HYI/2023/0022.
For a determination of the principal accountable person under section 75 of the Building Safety Act 2022.
Centrillion Point, 2 Masons Avenue, Croydon CRO 9WX: LON/00AH/HYI/2022/0012.
For a remediation order under section 123 of the Building Safety Act 2022
Triathlon Homes LLP v Stratford Village Development Partnership & Others [2024] UKFTT 26 (PC)
BUILDING SAFETY – REMEDIATION CONTRIBUTION ORDER – remediation of cladding defects at former Olympic Village – whether just and equitable to make orders against head landlord/developer and well-resourced associate – tribunal jurisdiction – costs incurred before commencement of Act – s.124, Building Safety Act 2022
Orchard House, 515-517 Stockwood Road, Bristol BS4 5LR : CHI/00HB/HYI/2023/0007 & CHI/00HB/HYI/2023/0012.
Building Safety Act 2022- Remediation Order.
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?
5. Transactional Issues – Contractual Liability
Andrew Hicks Engineering Ltd v Jenk Associates Ltd & Anor [2023] EWHC 2031 (Ch) (04 August 2023).
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.
6. Commercial Property
Messenex Property Investments Ltd v Lanark Square Ltd [2024] EWHC 89 (Ch) (23 January 2024).
In this case the Claimant, Messenex Property Investments Limited (“Messenex”), seeks a declaration that its obligations as the tenant under a lease of a formerly mixed-use building to seek consent from the landlord to alterations to the demised premises do not preclude it from carrying out two sets of works. Those two sets of works are: works to add three floors to the building (which I shall refer to as the “Rooftop Works”); and works to the ground floor of the premises to convert it from business to residential use (which I shall refer to as the “Ground Floor Works”).
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”).
7. Property Transactions
Baylis & Anor v Haider & Ors [2024] EWHC 187 (Ch) (01 February 2024).
On 12th April 2022 the Claimants issued proceedings against three Defendants – an individual, Mr Syed Ali Haider (“Mr.Haider”); a firm of solicitors with the trading name Edward Marshall Solicitors (“Edward Marshall”); and a commercial lender known as Together Commercial Finance Ltd (“Together”). The claim concerns the sale or purported sale of the property known as 19 Bromstone Road, Broadstairs, Kent CT10 2HJ (“the Property”), of which the Claimants had been registered as joint proprietors (under title number K81240) until the events that give rise to this claim. It is and was their family home.
Williams v Williams & Ors [2024] EWCA Civ 42 (01 February 2024).
This case concerned an appeal by Lloyd Dorian Williams (‘Dorian’) against the High Court’s decision which dismissed his claims regarding the beneficial ownership of a farm, Cefn Coed, and adjoining land. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s ruling that the farm was acquired by Dorian and his parents as beneficial tenants in common in equal shares, not as beneficial joint tenants.
Byers & Ors v Saudi National Bank (Rev1) [2023] UKSC 51 (20 December 2023)
This appeal is about the equitable personal claim in what is generally called knowing receipt. It usually arises where a trustee (“T”) transfers trust property beneficially owned by the claimant (“C”) to the defendant (“D”) in breach of trust, and D learns about that breach before disposing of the property by transfer to a third party or by dissipation or destruction of it. In such a case although, after disposal, dissipation or destruction of the property by D, C can no longer pursue a proprietary claim that D transfer the property to C, (or if appropriate back to T or to a new trustee), D incurs a personal liability to account or pay compensation to C as if D were a trustee of the property. From the moment when D learns of the breach of trust, D comes under a personal obligation to restore the trust property to its equitable owner, and to act as its custodian in the meantime. That obligation, together with the concomitant liability to account, is often described as a form of constructive trusteeship. The single issue to be decided on this appeal is whether an equitable claim in knowing receipt depends (among other things) upon C retaining an equitable proprietary interest in the property transferred to D at the time when it reached D’s hands before D either transferred, dissipated or destroyed the property. This case is (perhaps) unusual in that D knew at the time of its receipt of the property that T was transferring it in breach of trust and has been sued in knowing receipt without having transferred, destroyed or dissipated it. The proprietary claim to the property which would usually arise on those facts is defeated (as held by the Court of Appeal and is now common ground) by the fact that the transfer from T to D had the effect under the applicable foreign law of giving D clear title to the property, free from C’s beneficial interest in it.
Ullah v Ullah & Anor [2023] EWHC 3313 (KB) (21 December 2023).
The underlying claim which forms the subject of this appeal relates to seven properties and two in particular, specifically: i) 61 Dudden Hill Lane, London NW10 1BD (“61DHL”) purchased in May 1995 and ii) 91-93 Coldharbour Lane, Hayes, Middlesex UB3 3EF (“91-93 CHL”) purchased in February 1996 (“the two properties”) which were purchased in the name of the Respondent.
Between June 1995 and May 1999, the seven properties, including the two properties the subject of his appeal, were purchased by the Appellant but registered in the Respondent’s name, (the Respondent being his son). The Appellant ran a carpet business in which his sons worked. It is the Appellant’s case that from the retained profits of his business he was able to purchase the properties for investment purposes.
8. Boundaries and Adverse Possession
Clapham & Ors v Narga [2023] EWHC 3337 (Ch) (22 December 2023).
By Appellant’s Notice dated 21 February 2023 the Appellants, Mr and Mrs Clapham and Mrs and Mrs Wright, applied for permission to appeal against the Order dated 7 March 2023 (the “Order“) made by His Honour Judge Hedley (the “Judge“) dismissing their claims for declaratory relief in relation to (1) the location of the boundary between their properties 24 to 26 the Green Thrussington Leicestershire, and the property of the Respondent, Ms Narga, at Brook Barn, Seagrave Road Thrussington Leicestershire; and (2) their claim that they were entitled to be registered as proprietors of two strips of land between their properties and hers.
9. Co-ownership and Estoppel
Holden v Holden & Anor [2023] EWHC 3292 (Ch) (20 December 2023).
This case concerns the dissolution of a farming partnership (the “Partnership“) that subsisted among three brothers. The partners were the Claimant, Mr Robin Holden; the First Defendant, Mr David Holden; and the Second Defendant, Mr Nicholas Holden.
10. 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 