Trawl: Property Law UK Update Info for Newsletter Editors
| Trawl date | 11 November 2024 |
| Article deadline | 20 November 2024 |
Contents – topic areas
- Residential – Landlord & Tenant
- Residential Leasehold
- Business Lease Renewal
- Property Transactions
- Property Litigation
- Planning
- Rights of Way
- Nuisance and Trespass
- Easements
- Mortgages
1. Residential – Landlord & Tenant
Hajan v Mayor & Burgesses of the London Borough of Brent [2024] EWCA Civ 1260 (23 October 2024).
These two appeals, which were heard together, raise questions about the procedure which a landlord must follow in order to recover possession of a dwelling house on the ground of anti-social behaviour resulting in conviction for a serious offence. In Hajan v Brent LBC we are concerned with a secure tenancy; and in Poplar HARCA v Kerr we are concerned with an assured tenancy.
29 Buckland Crescent Management Company Ltd v White [2024] EWHC 1480 (Ch)
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.
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 Leasehold
Avon Freeholds Ltd v Cresta Court E RTM Company Ltd () [2024] UKUT 335 (LC) (28 October 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.
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. Business Lease Renewal
AP Wireless II (UK) Ltd v On Tower UK Ltd [2024] UKUT 263 (LC) (09 September 2024).
ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS CODE – CODE AGREEMENTS – LEASE/LICENCE DISPUTE – sites in open country – agreements entered into granting code operator the right to install and operate telecommunications equipment – whether agreements took effect as leases or licences – whether one of the agreements was granted for a term which was capable of being a term certain – whether either or both of the agreements granted exclusive possession of a defined area of land to the code operator – decision that both agreements did grant exclusive possession of a defined area of land – decision that only one of the agreements took effect as a lease because, in the case of the other agreement, the agreement was not granted for a term which was capable of being a term certain and took effect only as a licence – appeal allowed in part.
4. Property Transactions
Corfield v Howard [2024] EWHC 2727 (Comm) (30 October 2024)
This case involved a dispute between the claimant, Mr. Christopher Andrew Corfield, and the defendant, Ms. Christine Marie Howard, over the interpretation and enforcement of a settlement agreement related to their dissolved property partnership:
- The defendant sought declaratory relief regarding a settlement agreement.
- The court examined the terms of the settlement, focusing on the division of property sale proceeds.
- The court ruled that the claimant’s entitlement was limited to £400,000 from the sale proceeds.
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.
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.
5. Property Litigation
Khan & Ors v Khan [2024] EWHC 2491 (Ch) (04 October 2024)
This claim concerns the beneficial ownership of four properties (“the Properties”) in Greater London – in order of acquisition, 14 Stapleton Road, in Tooting Bec, 7 Essex Grove, in Upper Norwood, 53 Norbury Crescent, in Norbury, and 5 Ullswater Road, in West Norwood The Claimants assert that the leasehold and freehold interest in 7 Essex Grove is held beneficially for Farhana, Shalima and Jennifer (together “the Daughters”) while the leasehold and freehold interests in the other three properties are held beneficially for the Defendant, Ahmed and Sarwar (together “the Sons”). At present, legal title to the leasehold flats at 14 Stapleton Road, 7 Essex Grove and 5 Ullswater Road is held by the Defendant, while the legal title to the freehold at each of those properties is held by Ahmed. The flats are let to tenants. The freehold title to 53 Norbury Crescent is held by the Defendant, and is subject to a lease to Purple Panda Nurseries Ltd, a business in which the Defendant has an interest.
Fitzroy Estates Investments Ltd v Westfield Park Ltd [2024] EWHC 2550 (Ch) (11 October 2024).
This decision follows the trial of a debt claim by which the Claimant (“Harworth”) seeks to recover the principal sum of £399,989.06 as an additional payment which it claims it is due under an agreement, dated 14 October 2021, for the sale and purchase of York Holiday Park Development which was made between it and the Defendant (“Westfield”). The main issue between the parties has been whether, on the proper construction of the relevant provisions of the agreement (“the Sale Agreement”), the additional payment is due. Harworth contends alternatively that, if the additional payment is not due on the proper construction of the Sale Agreement, the Sale Agreement should be rectified with the effect that the additional payment has become due.
Burns v Bridge & Anor [2024] EWHC 2620 (Ch) (18 October 2024).
The case related to the construction of the definition of the phrase “lender’s debt” in a Deed made between the parties. The claimant also alleged that certain properties, sold by the defendants, were sold at an undervalue. The claimant succeeded in relation to the construction issue to a limited extent (but one which may make no practical difference to the outcome). The claimed failed on the sale at an undervalue allegations.
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.
Rollerteam Ltd v Riley & Anor [2024] EWHC 2736 (Ch) (30 October 2024).
This case involved longstanding litigation between Rollerteam Limited and Linda Riley regarding breaches of trust concerning a property held under a trust deed:
- Rollerteam Limited sued Linda Riley for breaches of trust related to property transfer.
- The court had to decide on equitable compensation for the breaches.
- The court awarded Rollerteam Limited equitable compensation of £7,500.
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.
Parker v Parker-Bowyer & Ors [2024] EWHC 2239 (Ch) (05 September 2024)
This claim is part of an especially acrimonious father/son dispute. In it, somewhat unusually, I must determine whether the Claimant, on his own case, is now lying about being untruthful in a key document. I adopt the first names of the parties and witnesses for ease of reference and with no disrespect. The father, the Claimant, Mike, claims first against one of his two sons, the First Defendant, Tom, for a declaration that Tom holds a property known as the House on constructive trust for him (“the Trust Claim”). Secondly Mike claims against Tom and the Second Defendant, Tom’s wife Kim, for an order for delivery up or payment of the value of what Mike says are valuable goods left by him in the House (“the Chattels Claim”), and thirdly against all three Defendants for damages for conversion of various of the chattels.
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.
Passi & Ors v Hansrani [2024] EWHC 2062 (Ch) (05 August 2024)
This case concerns property ownership within a family which is not clearly recorded in writing and exacerbated by the absence of wills from the parents. This is multiplied as the dispute relates to not one property but eleven. As a result, a brother on one side and his three sisters on the other have between them spent over £800,000 feuding about their properties.
6. Planning
Abacus Land 1 (HoldCo 1) Ltd & Ors v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2024] EWHC 2753 (Admin) (30 October 2024).
This hearing was listed to consider the defendant Secretary of State’s applications to stay three judicial review claims (“the Unstayed Claims”). The claims challenge various provisions (“the Enfranchisement Measures”) of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, (the “2024 Act”) as contrary to their rights under Article 1 of Protocol 1 (“A1P1”) to the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”), in that they amount to an expropriation of the value of their property without any or any adequate compensation.
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. 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.
10. Mortgages
Lloyds Bank PLC v Mealham & Anor [2024] EWHC 2737 (Ch) (29 October 2024).
This case involved Lloyds Bank Plc seeking possession of a property due to unpaid loans, with the defendants challenging the proceedings on various grounds, including allegations of fraud and national security:
- Lloyds Bank Plc pursued possession of a property due to unpaid loans.
- The defendants made multiple applications, alleging fraud and national security issues.
- The court dismissed the defendants’ applications as totally without merit (TWM).
- A civil restraint order was issued against the first defendant for persistent meritless claims.
The claimant, Lloyds Bank Plc, provided a loan secured against the property owned by the defendants, Mr. Mealham and Ms. Alford. The loan was not repaid.
English 