Trawl: Property Law UK Update Info for Newsletter Editors
| Trawl date | 06 September 2024 |
| Article deadline | 18 September 2024 |
Contents – topic areas
- Residential – Landlord & Tenant
- Residential Lease Management
- Business Lease Renewal
- Property Transactions
- Property Litigation
- Building Safety Act
- Rights of Way
- Nuisance and Trespass
- Easements
- Mortgages
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.
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.
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. Business Lease Renewal
Kwik-Fit Properties Ltd v Resham Ltd [2024] EWCC 4 (09 August 2024).
This case concerns an unopposed business lease renewal claim brought by the tenant and claimant, Kwik-Fit Properties Limited (“Kwik-Fit”), against the landlord, Resham Limited (“Resham”), pursuant to Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (“LTA 1954”).
It is agreed that a new lease should be granted. The dispute this judgment deals with is as to three terms of the same. The disputed terms in question concern whether there should be a tenant’s break clause (and if so, the frequency), the amount of the tenant’s contribution to maintenance etc. of an access way, and the quantum of the rent.
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
Rotenberg v Rotenberg & Ors [2024] EWFC 185 (15 July 2024).
This case concerned ongoing financial remedy proceedings between Natalia Nikolaeva Rotenberg and Arkady Romanovich Rotenberg, focusing on the ownership of a Surrey property post-divorce.
Gibbins v Tierney & Ors [2024] EWHC 2004 (Ch) (01 August 2024)
In 2019, the Respondents found a property in Brighton which they wished to purchase and use as their residence. Rather than purchase it themselves, they wanted to use the Company to finance the purchase. Their plan was that the Company would take a loan from Funding Circle Limited (‘Funding Circle’) in the sum of £250,000 and would transfer those loan monies, together with the sum of £325,000 from the Company’s own cash reserves, to a special purpose vehicle (‘the SPV’) set up in connection with the purchase and controlled by the Respondents.
The Petitioner was not in favour of the Company taking a loan from Funding Circle or using its own cash reserves to purchase a property beneficially for the Respondents. Having made her position clear, however, the Petitioner was pressurised by the Respondents to agree to the proposed acquisition.
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.
Fox & Anor v Bent & Ors [2024] EWHC 2179 (Ch) (20 August 2024).
The Judge declared that a property in Surrey (“the Property”) was held by the First Respondent, Marcus Bent, on trust for his daughter, Aliyah Bent, who is the Fourth Respondent. Mr Bent was made bankrupt on 2nd January 2019. The Appellants are his trustees in bankruptcy. The consequence of the Order is that the Property does not form part of Mr Bent’s estate in bankruptcy, with the further consequence that the Appellants’ claim for possession of the Property and an order for its sale for the benefit of the bankrupt estate fell to be dismissed.
Nilsson & Anor v Cynberg [2024] EWHC 2164 (Ch) (23 August 2024)
This case concerned a dispute over the beneficial ownership of a property following the bankruptcy of Stuart Cynberg, involving issues of common intention constructive trust and proprietary estoppel.
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.
6. Building Safety Act
Abbey Healthcare (Mill Hill) Ltd v Augusta 2008 LLP (formerly Simply Construct (UK) LLP) [2024] UKSC 23 (09 July 2024).
The dispute between the parties related to alleged fire safety defects at a care home in North London. Abbey Healthcare (Mill Hill) Ltd, as the tenant, was provided with a collateral warranty by the contractor, Simply Construct (UK) LLP (Abbey Collateral Warranty). The Abbey Collateral Warranty contained a provision that the contractor “has performed and will continue to perform diligently its obligations under the [Building] Contract”.
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.
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
10. Mortgages
Pure Retirement Ltd v Estate of Mr Reginald Leslie Burdett [2024] EW Misc 22 (CC) (19 July 2024).
This case involved Pure Retirement Limited seeking possession of a property and a money judgment against the estate of Mr. Reginald Leslie Burdett, represented by Louise Kench, following a dispute over a lifetime mortgage.
English 