‘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
‘This Q&A deals with user clauses in commercial leases. What is permitted by a covenant permitting use solely as a laundrette? Does such a clause permit the provision of dry-cleaning services?’
Hardwicke Chambers, 21st March 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘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
Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Apollo Fuels Ltd and others; [2016] EWCA Civ 157
‘The employers leased cars to their employees to enable them to carry out their duties. The cars were leased on arm’s length commercial terms, including lease charges at full market value. The revenue concluded that the provision of the cars was a taxable benefit, for the purposes of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003, and served notices of assessment for that tax on the employees. The First-tier Tribunal allowed the employees’ appeal, holding that the provision of the cars was a “benefit” which fell within section 114 of the 2003 Act with the result that Chapter 6 of Part 3 of the 2003 Act applied. That decision was affirmed by the Upper Tribunal.’
WLR Daily, 17th March 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Forfeiture of (residential) long leases is a controversial subject: on the one hand, it’s clear that there has to be a practical and accessible route for landlords to enforce covenants, whether as to payment of monies or more general “management” covenants (e.g. stopping people just removing load bearing walls); but, on the other, the potential for an enormous (and almost always disproportionate) benefit to the landlord if the lease actually is forfeited is pretty hard to justify. Moreover, as a result of both the general drafting techniques in long leases and some [ahem] interesting Court of Appeal decisions, there is a pretty good case that a landlord can recover his legal and professional costs of pursuing forfeiture matters, even if the breach is trivial or if relief would be granted.’
Nearly Legal, 29th February 2016
Source: www.nearlylegal.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
‘Chapter I of Part I of the 1993 Act confers on certain tenants of flats held under long residential leases in certain premises the right to collective enfranchisement, that is to say the right to have the freehold of those premises acquired on their behalf by a person appointed by them for that purpose and at a price determined in accordance with Schedule 6 to the 1993 Act. Tenants entitled to participate in collective enfranchisement are called “qualifying tenants”. The premises must comprise two or more flats held by qualifying tenants. The total number of flats held by such tenants must be not less than two thirds of the total number of flats contained in the premises’
Tanfield Chambers, 7th January 2016
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘Briefly, the issue was that lease clauses for some (but not all) holiday chalet leases in the Gower effectively provided for a 10% per annum increase in fixed charges for maintenance etc. The compound effect of this was that leases that started with a £90 pa service charge in 1974 would have a charge of £1,025,004 pa by the end of the term in 2072. Even by 2012, the amount payable was considerably in excess of the actual costs to the landlord of the services.’
Nearly Legal, 1st January 2016
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘People will no longer have the right to live in their council home for life in future after ministers moved to impose a five-year limit on new tenancies.’
The Guardian, 9th December 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
West End Investments (Cowell Group) Ltd v Birchlea Ltd [2015] EWHC 3381 (Ch); [2015] WLR (D) 499
‘There must be a significant deviation from the vertical plane for the exception in section 2(2) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 to apply.’
WLR Daily, 27th November 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The law of enfranchisement is very complicated. A whole industry has evolved to try to interpret the provisions of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (“the 1967 Act”) and the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (“the 1993 Act”) and put them into practice. The cost and frustration to leaseholders of such a convoluted process is considerable.’
Tanfield Chambers, 3rd December 2015
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘Most landlord and tenant disputes end up in court. From the perspective of landlords, this can be a lengthy, frustrating, and costly process. For tenants, the experience is often uncertain, draining, and also costly. Is there a place for arbitration in this?’
Tanfield Chambers, 30th November 2015
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘While many practitioners are familiar with the general workings of lease renewals under the ’54 Act, there is one aspect of the law that is often overlooked: interim rent under sections 24A to D. Andy Creer takes a look at the law.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 20th November 2015
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘Leasehold disputes, like any litigation, are capable of generating significant legal and other professional costs. The position is generally better for freeholders/third party managers than it is for leaseholders in that a well-drafted lease will usually give the landlord/manager a right to recover legal costs, often through a variety of different forms of covenant. These clauses can (and do) “trump” any procedural restrictions on the award of costs, see, e.g. Chaplair, but, of course, it is always a question of construction as to what the clause in question covers.’
Nearly Legal, 5th December 2015
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘A term would only be implied into a detailed commercial contract if its implication were necessary to give business efficacy to the contract or so obvious that went without saying.’
WLR Daily, 2nd December 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘There have been plenty of Upper Tribunal decisions on RTM (we covered the UT decision in this case with six others back in December 2013 – our note here, where your correspondent would like it noted that he suggested that there was “plenty for the Court of Appeal to tuck into”), but there has only been one previous excursion into this area by the Court of Appeal. That case, Gala Unity Ltd v Ariadne Road RTM Co Ltd [ 2012 ]] EWCA Civ 1372 (our note), is quite the predecessor to Ninety Broomfield Road in that both cases concerned more than one block of flats seeking to exercise the right to manage together. And quite the oddity, too. The Court of Appeal in Ninety Broomfield Road has restored some sense to the application of RTM in multiple block cases. It is also plainly right (a seal of approval that will doubtless cheer the hearts of the Court of Appeal judges involved).’
Nearly Legal, 29th October 2015
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘In a consultation opening today we look at what can be done to protect owners of retirement flats and their families from unexpected charges hidden in leases.’
Law Commission, 29th October 2015
Source: www.lawcom.gov.uk
‘An “offensive” coffee shop sign has found itself at the centre of a legal row in London.’
Independent, 22nd October 2015
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Banksy has been described as a pseudonymous graffiti artist, political activist, film director, and painter. In The Creative Foundation v Dreamland Leisure Ltd & Others [2015] EWHC 2556 (Ch) Mr Justice Arnold had to decide the ownership of a mural known as “Art Buff” attributed to Banksy and spray-painted overnight in September 2014 onto an external flank wall of an amusement arcade (”the building”) in Folkestone owned by Stonefield Estates Ltd (“Stonefield”). The ingenuous arguments advanced on behalf Dreamland in support of its claim to be the owner of the mural are arguably at least as imaginative as the mural. The judgment addresses a novel point.’
New Square Chambers, 30th September 2015
Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk
‘With the recent publication of the 2015-2016 editions of the Blackstone’s Statutes series, we asked some of the authors to select a piece of legislation from the series that has the most impact on their subject area.’
Full story
OUP Blog, 28th September 2015
Source: www.oupblog.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024