Articles

In this series of articles, we aim to highlight 3 of the most interesting cases in our field decided in the past month. This month: tenancy deposit protection, the scope of the right to manage, and an unusual possession claim. Readers may also be interested in the summaries of other cases prepared by our colleagues this month: there are updates about rights of first refusal, the extent of ‘the holding’ under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, and applications to modify covenants under s.84 Law of Property Act 1925.

• Fern Schofield

Many landlord and tenant cases involve expert evidence and the majority of independent experts act impeccably. In a recent case involving a business lease renewal and another involving dilapidations, judges have, however, found significant cause to criticise experts for their failure to understand the scope of their duties and role. The consequences were serious for those concerned. A salutary reminder of the critical importance of compliance with CPR Pt 35 for all those instructing and instructed.

• Janet Bignell KC

In this series of articles, we aim to highlight 3 of the most interesting cases in our field decided in the past month. This month: the Upper Tribunal’s jurisdiction to set aside an order purportedly modifying leasehold covenants; the Court of Appeal on whether a joint tenancy or tenancy in common is to be presumed when land is bought for business purposes; and the Upper Tribunal on 2 aspects of the Electronic Communications Code, which casts doubt on the position adopted in some texts about the 1954 Act.

• Stephanie Tozer KC
• Fern Schofield

The Building Safety Act 2022 does not directly impose many duties on landlords of non higher-risk buildings to do fire safety or anti-collapse works. Rather, the sources of such duties are: Landlord covenants in leases; S84 for higher risk buildings, where the landlord is an accountable person; and The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (as amended) for fire-risks. Paul Letman and Cecily Crampin consider the sources of duties in more detail.

• Paul Letman
• Cecily Crampin

In Waller-Edwards v One Savings Bank Plc [2023] EWHC 2386 (Ch) the High Court considered the previously undecided point of whether a lender will be fixed with constructive notice of undue influence, rendering a charge vulnerable to being set aside, in circumstances where only part of a mortgage loan is provided for the sole benefit of one of two borrowers in a non-commercial relationship. This is an article by Tricia Hemans, a version of which was originally published by Lexis Nexis.

• Tricia Hemans