‘The reach of the Defective Premises Act and what ‘defective’ means within the context of the Act, was the subject of detailed consideration in the QBD recently, in Dodd v Raebarn Estates [2016].’
Hardwicke Chambers, 8th March 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘In 2011, Marks and Spencer plc (“M&S”) operated a “break clause” in commercial leases of office premises. Following determination, M&S sought to recover from the landlord advance quarterly rent that it had paid for the period after the successful break. M&S relied, in part, on an implied term claim that post-break rent should be returned to it. The landlord denied the claim and litigation ensued. Morgan J in the High Court gave judgment for M&S on the claim. The Court of Appeal unanimously reversed the judgment. The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed M&S’ appeal and re-stated the principles for the implication of contract terms: Marks and Spencer plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Co (Jersey) Ltd[2015] UKSC 72, [2015] 3 WLR 1843.’
New Square Chambers, 11th April 2016
Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk
‘April 2016 is a month of big changes for people living and working in the UK. A number of new laws and policies are coming into force, affecting just about everyone from public sector workers to dog owners. Here’s what the new laws could mean for you.’
The Independent, 3rd April 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal have recently considered the issue of whether or not a missing bannister could amount to disrepair pursuant to section 4 of the Defective Premises Act 1972.’
Zenith PI Blog, 29th March 2016
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘Anti-avoidance provisions in the 1995 Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act prevent a tenant from assigning a lease to its guarantor, the High Court has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 21st March 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Anti-avoidance provisions in the 1995 Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act prevent a tenant from assigning a lease to its guarantor, the High Court has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 21st March 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Neighbour nuisance. These are often difficult and indeed expensive cases. And always there are those affected who believe that a landlord is liable for their tenant’s nuisance (which they just aren’t, save for the extremely rare case in which the landlord has participated in or, by letting the property authorised their tenant’s nuisance – Lawrence v. Fen Tigers Ltd (No. 2) [2014] UKSC 46, [2015] AC 106,).’
Nearly Legal, 20th March 2016
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘You wait for 4 years for another case on bannisters and the Defective Premises Act 1972 and then two come along at once…
Sternbaum v Dhesi [2016] EWCA Civ 155
Dodd v Raebarn Estates Ltd & Ors [2016] EWHC 262 (QB)
Both can be dealt with fairly quickly and together, as the courts follow the same lines. Both cases involved falls on stairs, very sadly in Dodd, a fatal fall. In each case, there was no bannister to the staircase. Both claims were on appeal from being dismissed at first instance.’
Nearly Legal, 20th March 2016
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘This has been a bit of an epic. First, the problem of High Court Enforcement Officers using form N293A to obtain writs of possession against tenants was raised by us in November 2015, then the scale of that use became clear by January 2016, and there were updates in February. Now, the coup de grace (which, if I am entirely honest, I’ve known was coming for a while).’
Nearly Legal, 21st March 2016
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
Cocking and another v Eacott and another [2016] EWCA Civ 140
‘The second defendant owned but did not occupy a property. She granted the first defendant, her daughter, a bare licence to live there. The second defendant paid all the bills and maintained the property and her daughter did not pay any rent. The claimant owners of the next door property complained about the excessive barking of the daughter’s dog. The claimants wrote a letter before action to which the second defendant responded that a landlord was not liable for nuisance committed by a tenant, that she was not personally involved in the alleged incidents and that she was estranged from her daughter. The claimants issued proceedings against the second defendant and her daughter for nuisance. The second defendant served a notice to quit on her daughter and obtained a possession order which she did not enforce. The second defendant did not accept the claimants’ offer of a settlement if she permanently evicted her daughter from the property. The judge held that the second defendant was liable in nuisance to the claimants even though she did not occupy the property from which the nuisance emanated, concluding that liability attached once the owner knew or was deemed to know of the nuisance and had failed after a reasonable time to abate it and therefore if the owner chose to do nothing then she became liable for it with the actual creator of the nuisance.’
WLR Daily, 9th March 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Jones v London Borough of Southwark [2016] EWHC 457 (Ch). Quite a lot of councils have agreements with water suppliers under which the council will collect water charges from their tenants, effectively as an addition to the rent. This case concerned a challenge to the nature and validity of Southwark’s agreement, at least before 2013.’
Nearly Legal, 5th March 2016
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/
‘Lafferty v Newark & Sherwood District Council [2016] EWHC 320 (QB). Does section 4(4) of the Defective Premises Act 1972 create a strict liability on the landlord for any defect, such that it covers latent or undetectable defects? The short answer is no. This appeal sets out why.’
Nearly Legal, 6th March 2016
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/
‘A London borough has overcharged approximately 37,000 tenants for water and sewerage services, a High Court judge has ruled.’
Local Government Lawyer, 4th March 2016
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘It is not uncommon for a lease to impose an obligation on one party or another to insure the subject property against the usual insured risks. But difficult questions can arise when the party placing the insurance is not the party in occupation. When and to what extent can the proceeds be shared? And what impact does such an arrangement have on damage caused by the occupier’s negligence?’
Tanfield Chambers, 9th February 2016
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘The High Court delivered judgment last Friday in Fresca-Judd v Golovina, a test case raising important questions on tenants’ liability for damage to property. Katrina Mather assisted with this case during her twelve month pupillage, and has set out a useful summary of the case, and the issues that flow from it.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 11th February 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘Ms Golvina had rented a cottage from Ms Fresca-Judd. The rent was some £2,800 per month. Ms Golvina was away from the cottage over the Christmas period in 2010 and while she was away, the pipes froze and then burst during a cold snap. The cottage was flooded and the damage caused allegedly amounted to some £128,089.71.’
Nearly Legal, 16th February 2016
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘In what has turned into a continuing series, there are further updates on enforcement of possession orders via the High Court, obtaining writs and the scandalous conduct of many High Court Enforcement Officers.’
Nearly Legal, 13th February 2016
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘The ‘without prejudice’ privilege refers to the inadmissibility of any party communications targeted toward settlement. The objective of this privilege is to encourage parties engaging in settlement consideration, by ensuring any information disclosed in the pursuit of settlement cannot be submitted in litigation proceedings (see Lord Griffiths in Rush & Tomkins v GLC [1989] 1 AC 1280).’
Law Society’s Gazette, 15th February 2016
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘A judge who wrongly questioned the status of a solicitor after doing his own research on the Law Society’s website, has been criticised by the Court of Appeal.’
Legal Futures, 5th February 2016
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘Litigants in person (LiPs) can benefit from the ‘without prejudice’ rule even if they do not know what it means, the Court of Appeal has made clear.’
Litigation Futures, 19th January 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025