+44 (0)20 7353 2484 clerks@falcon-chambers.com

Anthony Radevsky

Called 1978

Anthony Radevsky

Tony Radevsky’s real property practice includes residential and commercial landlord and tenant, restrictive covenants and property related professional negligence.

His main specialism is leasehold enfranchisement (including the right of first refusal) and he is the co-author of the leading textbooks.

He has appeared in many of the leading cases from the Supreme Court to Tribunals. A list of some of his recent reported cases is set out below.

  • Education
    • University of Southampton, LL.B (Hons) (1977)
    • College of Law
  • Professional
    • Called 1978, Inner Temple
    • Real Estate Junior of the Year - Chambers Bar Awards 2010 and 2018.
    • Enfranchisement and Right to Manage Awards: Barrister of the Year (Winner 2012, Highly Commended 2011 and 2015) Outstanding Achievement Award (2016)
    • Hague Club, Honorary President (2019)​.
  • Recent Cases

    Over 160 reported cases (including 4 in the Supreme Court/House of Lords and 59 in the Court of Appeal).

    • Regent Wealth Ltd v Wiggins [2019] PLSCS 203 (Upper Tribunal decision on construction of a covenant against alienation in a licence; whether it is possible to correct a mistake by interpretation, or imply a term).
    • York House (Chelsea) Ltd v Thompson (High Court) [2020] Ch 1 (right of first refusal under Landlord and Tenant Act 1987: leases between husband and wife were gifts or transfers and excluded from being relevant disposals by s. 4(2)(e) and (f))
    • Ryan v Villarosa (High Court) [2019] 1 WLR 515 (right of Executors to serve s. 42 notice claiming new lease of flat more than two years after probate granted; right to assign benefit of s. 42 notice before transfer registered)
    • Whitehall Court London Ltd v Crown Estate Commissioners (CA) [2019] 1 WLR 2319 (extent of no-1993 Act rights assumption in new lease claim)
    • 4-6 Trinity Church Square Freehold Ltd v Corporation of the Trinity House of Deptford Strond (CA) [2018] 1 WLR 4876 (collective enfranchisement – grant of rights over garden instead of transfer of freehold)
    • Mundy v Trustees of the Sloane Stanley Estate (CA) [2018] 1 WLR 4751 (rejection of Parthenia model of relativity in new lease claims by the Upper Tribunal upheld)
    • Jones v Mahmut (CA) [2018] 1 WLR 6051 (landlord not able to rely in s. 17 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 when in breach of court order)
    • Re Midland Freeholds Ltd and Speedwell Estates Ltd’s appeals [2017] UKUT 463 (LC) (when is it permissible for the FTT to adjust the deferment rate for deterioration, or the freehold value to reflect a risk of deferred possession)
    • Grosvenor (Mayfair) Estate v Merix International Ventures Ltd (CA) [2017] L & TR 18 (whether empty building last used largely as offices a house reasonably so called)
    • Howard de Walden Estates Ltd v Accordway Ltd and Kateb (CA) [2017] 1 WLR 1761 (right of freeholder to bind intermediate landlord upheld – human rights argument rejected) 
    • 4-6 Trinity Church Square Freehold Ltd v Corporation of the Trinity House of Deptford Strond [2017] L & TR 25 (collective enfranchisement – grant of rights over garden instead of transfer of freehold)
    • Trustees of the Sloane Stanley Estate v Mundy [2016] EGLR 38 (important Upper Tribunal test case on valuation of new leases of flats – rejection of hedonic regression model of relativity)
    • West End Investments (Cowell Group) Ltd v Birchlea Ltd (Ch D)[2016] 4 WLR 4 (vertical division under Leasehold Reform Act 1967)
    • Jewelcraft Ltd v Pressland (CA) [2016] L & TR 7 (whether shop and flat a house)
    • Miltonland Ltd v Platinum House (Harrow) RTM Co Ltd [2016] L & TR 9 (right to manage claim notice)
    • Snowball Assets Ltd v Huntsmore House (Freehold) Ltd [2015] EGLR 61 (collective enfranchisement offer of rights)
    • Wiggins v Regent Wealth (CA) [2015] 1 WLR 1188 (no amendment of initial notice allowed in collective enfranchisement claim)
    • Westbrook Dolphin Square Ltd v Friends Life Ltd (Ch D) [2015] 1 WLR 1713 (largest ever enfranchisement case involving several complex issues including – validity of proposed price in initial notice, companies as qualifying tenants, whether building more than 25% non-residential)
    • Helman v Keepers and Governors of John Lyon Free Grammar School (CA)[2014] 1 WLR 2451 (effect of tenant’s bankruptcy on chargee’s right to enfranchise)
    • Albion Residential Ltd v Albion Riverside Residents RTM Co Ltd [2014] PLSCS 22 (right to manage definition of self-contained building)
    • Cravecrest v Trustees of the Will of the Second Duke of Westminster (CA) [2014] Ch 301 (enfranchisement development value)
    • Wildsmith v Arrowgame Ltd (Ch D) [2013] 1 WLR 1051 (acquisition order under Part 3 Landlord and Tenant Act 1987)
    • Hosebay Ltd v Day (Supreme Court) [2012] 1 WLR 2884 (meaning of ‘house’)
    • Westbrook Dolphin Square Ltd v Friends Life Ltd (CA) [2012] 1 WLR 2752 (successive enfranchisement claims allowed)
    • Smith v Jafton Properties Ltd (CA)[2012] Ch 519 (assignment of part of a lease)
    • Lovat v Hertsmere Borough Council (CA) [2012] QB 533 (meaning of ‘adjoining land’)
    • Rosebery Ltd v Rocklee Ltd and Eaglestone Investments Corporation (Ch D) [2011] 1 EGLR 105 (extent of demise of flat)
    • McHale v Cadogan (CA) [2011] 1 EGLR 36 (marriage value)
    • Grosvenor Estate Belgravia v Klaasmeyer (LT) [2010] 16 EG 107 (enfranchisement valuation of escalator lease)
    • Culley v Daejan Properties Ltd (LT) [2010] L & TR 2 (deferment rate and hope value)
    • Earl Cadogan v Chehab (Admin Ct) [2010] 1 EGLR 35 (appeal from Rent Assessment Committee)
    • Nailrile Ltd v Cadogan (LT) [2009] 2 EGLR 151 (valuation of intermediate lease)
    • Ackerman v Portman Estates Nominees (CA) [2009] 1 WLR 1556 (whether claim for new lease of flat prolongs lease of building)
    • Prospect Estates Ltd v Grosvenor Estates Ltd (CA) [2009] 1 WLR 1313 (building let as offices not a house reasonably so called)
    • Howard de Walden Estates Ltd v Aggio (House of Lords) [2009] AC 39 (whether headlessee qualifying tenant of two flats)
    • Boss Holdings Ltd v Grosvenor West End Properties (House of Lords) [2008] 1 WLR 289 (meaning of 'house')
    • Dartmouth Court Blackheath Ltd v Berisworth Ltd (Ch D) [2008] 2 EGLR 141 (relevant disposal of parts of building)
    • Kensington Heights Commercial Co Ltd v Campden Hill Developments Ltd (CA) [2007] Ch 318 (tenants' right of first refusal)
    • Glen International Ltd v Triplerose Ltd (CA) [2007] 2 EGLR 81 (service of notice on landlord)
    • 9 Cornwall Crescent v Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (CA) [2006] 1 WLR 1163 (validity of counter-notice)
    • Brick Farm Management Ltd v Richmond Housing Partnership (QBD) [2005] 1 WLR 3934 (charitable housing trust)
    • 7 Strathray Gardens Ltd v Pointstar Shipping & Finance Ltd (CA) [2005] 1 EGLR 53 (validity of collective enfranchisement counter-notice)
    • Fattal v Free Grammar School of John Lyon (CA) [2005] 1 WLR 803 (valuation of improvements on enfranchisement of house)
    • Cadogan v Search Guarantees PLC (CA) [2004] 1 WLR 2768 (right to enfranchise sub-let house)
    • Cadogan v Strauss (CA) [2004] 2 EGLR 69 (validity of enfranchisement notice)
    • Lay v Ackerman (CA) [2004] L & TR 29 (service of counter-notice by wrongly named landlord)
    • M25 Group Ltd v Tudor (CA) [2004] 1 WLR 2319 (Landlord & Tenant Act 1987, validity of tenants' notice)
    • Raymere Ltd v Belle Vue Gardens Ltd (CA) [2004] Ch 29 (collective enfranchisement, deduction of title)
    • Collins v Howard de Walden Estates Ltd (CA) [2003] HLR 70 (enfranchisement of mews houses)
    • Regina (Morris) v London Rent Assessment Committee (CA) [2002] 2 EGLR 13 (1954 Act Part I validity of notice)
    • West Hampstead Co Ltd v Pearl Property Ltd (CA) [2002] 3 EGLR 55 (enfranchisement valuation date)
    • Re Azfar's Application (Lands Tribunal) [2002] 1 P & CR 17 (restrictive covenant)
    • John D Wood v Knatchbull (QBD) [2003] 1 EGLR 33 (estate agents' duty)
    • Cadogan Estates Ltd v McMahon (House of Lords) [2001] 1 AC 378 (bankruptcy and proviso for re-entry)
    • South v Chamberlayne (Ch D) [2001] 3 EGLR 54 (enfranchisement)
    • Burman v Mount Cook Land Ltd (CA) [2002] Ch 256 (enfranchisement counter-notice)
    • Edwin Shirley Productions v Workspace Management (Ch D) [2001] 2 EGLR 16 (proprietary estoppel)
    • Durley House Ltd v Cadogan (Ch D) [2000] 1 WLR 246 (rent review arbitration)
    • Gatwick Parking Service Ltd v Sargent (CA) [2000] 2 EGLR 45 (1954 Act Part ll - ground (g)).
    • Willingale v Golbalgrange Ltd (CA) [2000] 2 EGLR 55 (collective enfranchisement)
  • Publications
    • Hague on Leasehold Enfranchisement 3rd edn. (1999), 4th edn (2003), 5th edn (2009), 6th edn (2014), 7th edn (2020)
    • Tenants' Right of First Refusal 1st edn (2001), 2nd edn (2008), 3rd edn (2017), 4th edn (2021) 
    • Service of Documents 2nd edn. (1989)
    • Drafting Pleadings 2nd edn. (1995).
"Anthony Radevsky is best known for his market-leading expertise in leasehold enfranchisement. His practice includes a wide range of landlord and tenant cases, including high-profile commercial disputes."Chambers and Partners UK Bar Guide 2025 (Real Estate Litigation)
"Anthony is a well-respected expert on enfranchisement work."Chambers and Partners UK Bar Guide 2025 (Real Estate Litigation)
"Anthony remains unmatched on enfranchisement matters."Chambers and Partners UK Bar Guide 2025 (Real Estate Litigation)
"Anthony Radevsky continually impresses in the field of leasehold enfranchisement."Chambers and Partners UK Bar Guide 2025 (Real Estate Litigation)
"A skilled and measured advocate. He always presents his points in a very intellectually attractive manner."Legal 500 UK Bar Guide 2025
"Anthony is a first-class enfranchisement practitioner."
"He provides very clear and concise advice, is technically excellent and is very cost-effective."Chambers and Partners UK Bar Guide 2024 (Real Estate Litigation)
‘Tony gives very clear and firm advice which is succinct and commercial. He will never sit on the fence or reserve opinion on something. His knowledge of the enfranchisement legislation is second to none and if he thinks that it is a bad point he will say so rather than running up unnecessary costs.’Legal UK Bar Guide 500 2024
"Anthony has an encyclopedic knowledge of leasehold enfranchisement."Chambers and Partners UK Guide 2023
"He has a quick turnaround and is very effective. He is very technically strong."Chambers and Partners UK Guide 2023
"His approach is thorough and authoritative."Chambers and Partners UK Guide 2023
"He is commercial, very accessible and very concise."Chambers and Partners UK Guide 2023
More published comments