Trawl: Property Law UK Update Info for Newsletter Editors
| Trawl date | 08 July 2024 |
| Article deadline | 22 July 2024 |
Contents – topic areas
- Residential – Landlord & Tenant
- Residential Lease Management
- Commercial Property
- Property Transactions
- Property Litigation
- Building Safety Act
- Rights of Way
- Nuisance and Trespass
- Restrictive Covenants
- Co-ownership and Estoppel
- Easements
1. Residential – Landlord & Tenant
29 Buckland Crescent Management Company Ltd v White [2024] EWHC 1480 (Ch) (19 June 2024).
The Appellant (the “Landlord”) is the freehold owner of a building known as 29 Buckland Crescent (the “Block”) which is divided into four flats. The Respondent (“Mr White”) is the lessee of a flat on the second floor (the “Flat”). The question raised by this appeal is whether the Landlord was entitled to take proceedings seeking forfeiture of Mr White’s lease, or whether that was precluded by the terms of a settlement agreement dated 26 April 2022 (the “Settlement Agreement”) pursuant to which the Landlord and Mr White had compromised an earlier dispute between them. In an oral judgment (the “Judgment”) given on 7 November 2023, HHJ Dight CBE (the “Judge”) concluded that the Settlement Agreement did preclude the Landlord from bringing forfeiture proceedings. The Landlord appeals against that conclusion.
Stella v Hodge Jones & Allan LLP [2024] EWHC 1704 (SCCO) (02 July 2024)
The Claimant retained the Defendant in September 2017 in a dispute concerning a property known as 49A The Chase, London, SW4 0NT (‘the ‘Property’). Initially the action concerned a dispute with the Claimant’s landlord about unpaid service charges, but it expanded to include a claim for disrepair, allegations of harassment and a disagreement with a neighbour about overhanging trees.
Weintraub v London Borough of Hackney [2024] EWHC 845 (Ch)
The Court determined that an elderly tenant occupied a property as his only or principal home, so he was entitled to exercise the right to buy: although he spent most of his nights elsewhere, he spent time there most days and intended to resume sleeping at the property once the right to buy process was complete (because he could then carry out works which would enable someone else to sleep in the property with him).
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.
Donovan v Prescott Place Freeholder Ltd & Ors [2024] EWCA Civ 298 (27 March 2024)
Court of Appeal considers whether the right of first refusal provided to qualifying tenants under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 had priority over the rights of a ‘recalcitrant’ freeholder.
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.
2. Residential Lease Management
26B Doddington Grove, London, SE17 3TT: LON/00BE/LSC/2021/0436
The Applicant seeks a determination pursuant to section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”) as to the amount of service charges payable by the Applicant in respect of the service charge years 2018/19, 2019/20 and 2020/21.
El Massouri v Omani Estates Ltd [2024] EWHC 1312 (Ch) (04 June 2024)
This judgment relates to two issues that have arisen with regard to the form of the Order that needs to be made in order to reflect the findings set out in my judgment at [2024] EWHC 534 (Ch).
The first issue relates to paragraph 3(a) of the draft Order. The issue is whether the land demised by the Frimpong Lease (title BGL19306) included the attic space that (prior to the extension works carried out in 2001/2002) was over the bathroom on the half-landing between the first and second floors of the Property.
Before considering the terms of the Frimpong Lease, I should refer first to the terms of the Claimant’s Lease (title NGL515428). In my judgment, this attic space was not part of the area demised under the Claimant’s Lease. The Claimant’s Lease was of “ALL THAT flat … situate on the second floor and including the ceilings and floors of the said flat and …. half the width of the joists or beams to which the ceilings are attached…”. Although the words refer to the second floor, it is common ground that the demise included the stairs from the first floor and the half-landing between the first and second floors and, in my judgment, as the bathroom on the half-landing had a ceiling (which would have been attached to joists/beams), the area above that (i.e. the attic) was excluded from the demise. It is true that the area was only accessible from the second floor flat – but so too (on my findings) was the roof and the space above the roof (which were also excluded from the demise).
29 Buckland Crescent Management Company Ltd v White [2024] EWHC 1480 (Ch) (19 June 2024).
The Appellant (the “Landlord”) is the freehold owner of a building known as 29 Buckland Crescent (the “Block”) which is divided into four flats. The Respondent (“Mr White”) is the lessee of a flat on the second floor (the “Flat”). The question raised by this appeal is whether the Landlord was entitled to take proceedings seeking forfeiture of Mr White’s lease, or whether that was precluded by the terms of a settlement agreement dated 26 April 2022 (the “Settlement Agreement”) pursuant to which the Landlord and Mr White had compromised an earlier dispute between them. In an oral judgment (the “Judgment”) given on 7 November 2023, HHJ Dight CBE (the “Judge”) concluded that the Settlement Agreement did preclude the Landlord from bringing forfeiture proceedings. The Landlord appeals against that conclusion.
Triplark Ltd v Whale & Ors [2024] EWHC 1440 (Ch) (12 June 2024)
Northwood Hall (NH), Hornsey Lane, London N6 5PG, is a purpose-built block of 194 flats, constructed in or around 1935. The flats at NH are held by their occupiers under long leases with varying unexpired terms (the Leases); a number of the Leases are held by the Defendants (Ds). The dispute that came before me for trial centred around the communal heating and hot water system serving all the flats at NH, which is operated by the landlord. The landlord is the Claimant (C) in these proceedings. The C wants to change the way in which the system operates. The Ds do not want to see any change because they say it will alter the terms of their leases.
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
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
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.
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.
5. Property Litigation
London Capital & Finance Plc & Ors v Thomson & Ors [2024] EWHC 1684 (Ch) (24 June 2024)
There are two applications before the court. The first is an application dated 6 June by the fifth defendant for the withdrawal of a unilateral notice, which was made by the claimants in December 2023 in respect of a property owned by the fifth defendant near Lechlade (“The Property”). The second is an application by the claimants against the fifth defendant for a proprietary freezing injunction in respect of the traceable proceeds of money which derived ultimately from the first claimant (“LCF”), including the Property.
Rarity Holdings Ltd v Parkhill [2024] EWHC 1637 (Ch) (27 June 2024)
Dispute over validity of property sale contract and return of deposit.
Taylor v Savik & Anor [2024] EW Misc 18 (CC) (21 May 2024)
The case involved Tracy Ann Taylor, the trustee in bankruptcy for Philip Ryle, who sought orders concerning a property registered in the name of Olga Savik. The property, known as The Grange, was alleged to have been purchased with money provided by Ryle. The trustee’s application was based on the doctrine of sham, transactions at undervalue under section 339 of the Insolvency Act 1986, and fraud on creditors under section 423 of the same Act.
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. Building Safety Act
Occupiers of Samuel Garside House v Bellway Homes Ltd & Anor [2024] EWHC 1579 (KB) (25 June 2024)
The Claim arises from the event of a serious fire (“the Fire”) at a block of flats (“the Building”), originally constructed in 2013, known as Samuel Garside House, 2 De Pass Gardens, Barking, Essex IG11 0FQ on 9 June 2019. The Claimants are occupiers or former occupiers of various of the flats in the Building. The First Defendant is the developer and constructor of the Building. The corporate architect of the Building was a company with the name Sheppard Robson Limited (“SRL”) and which is an associated entity of another company Sheppard Robson Architects Limited (“SRAL”). The Claimants seek damages against the Defendants at common-law and under the Defective Premises Act 1972 (“the 1972 Act”) for alleged negligence and breach of statutory duties. Those damages are both for physical damage and economic loss, and for personal injuries. All but one of the original Claimants is an adult, but three of the five Additional Claimants are, or are said to be, minors.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Restrictive Covenants
Rutland Lodge (Petersham) Management Company Ltd v Benjamin & Anor [2024] EWHC 1429 (Ch) (14 June 2024).
This claim concerns a freehold covenant binding the land of the Defendants at 2 Rutland Drive, Richmond, Surrey, TW10 7AQ (HMLR Reference: SGL182053) (“the Property”) in favour of the land of the Claimant at Rutland Lodge, Richmond, Surrey (HMLR Reference: SGL41937 and SGL41938) (“the Estate”). The covenant requires the Defendants to seek the permission of the Claimant before undertaking any structural works or alterations to the elevations or external appearance of the building on their land. The Claimant claims the works which have been undertaken by the Defendant are in breach of the said covenant, either because the license granted by the Claimant for the works on 6 May 2016 was entered into upon a misrepresentation or unilateral mistake, or because the works were not covered by its express terms. The Defendants have defended the Claim and counterclaimed that the Claimant, in breach of the same covenant, unreasonably refused to consent to further planned works.
10. Co-ownership and Estoppel
Winter & Anor v Winter & Anor [2024] EWCA Civ 699 (21 June 2024)
The claimants, Richard and Adrian Winter, and the first defendant, Philip Winter, are the sons of Albert and Brenda Winter. In a judgment dated 29 September 2023 (“the Judgment”), Zacaroli J (“the Judge”) found in favour of the claimants on a proprietary estoppel claim which they had made in relation to property comprised in Albert’s estate. Philip now challenges that decision.
FG, R (On the Application Of) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea [2024] EWHC 780 (Admin) (09 April 2024)
High Court rules that equitable doctrine of proprietary estoppel prevents assertion of a right to possession under a lease of part of a building that was subsequently extended and occupied by the claimant.
11. Easements
Akhtar & Ors v Khan & Ors [2024] EWHC 1519 (Ch) (17 June 2024).
This judgment follows the trial of a cross claims for prescriptive easements for the benefit of and over adjoining properties; and claims for damages/injunctive relief for assault, battery, harassment, nuisance and/or trespass.
Nicholson & Anor v Hale & Anor [2024] UKUT 153 (LC) (14 June 2024)
Land Registration – Easements – claim to the acquisition of a right of way by prescription – what is required to prevent the use relied upon being use as of right – appeal against decision of the First-tier Tribunal that the wording of a sign erected on the servient land had been insufficient to prevent the use being as of right – cross appeal against the decision of First-tier Tribunal that the sign could have been read by anyone making their way over the servient land – decision that the First-tier Tribunal had been entitled, on the evidence, to find that the sign could have been read by anyone making their way over the servient land – cross appeal dismissed – decision that the First-tier Tribunal had been wrong to decide that the wording of the sign had been insufficient to prevent the use being as of right – appeal allowed and decision of the First-tier Tribunal re-made as a decision that the Respondents were not entitled to a right of way over the servient land on the basis of prescription
English 