“Hunt & Ors v Optima (Cambridge) Ltd & Ors [2013] EWHC 681 (TCC).
This is a brief note on what was a complex case arising out of what, by any measure, appears to have been a very poor construction and subsequent maintenance of a new build block of flats. As will become clear, I’m rather troubled by some of the Court’s findings.”
NearlyLegal, 25th June 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
“Where there were intermediate leases which subsisted between the freehold and the leases of the participating tenants and which were to be acquired by the nominee purchaser on the collective enfranchisement, and a single owner of those leases or of those leases and the freehold could realise development value by developing the property for use other than as a building containing separate flats, the hope of realising such development value had to be taken into account in fixing the price to be paid for the intermediate leases.”
WLR Daily, 19th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Granting a licence for alterations without the consent of the guarantor can be enough to discharge the guarantor’s liability under the lease, the High Court has said.”
OUT-LAW.com, 18th June 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“In Avon Estates (London) Limited v Sinclair Gardens Investments (Kensington) Limited [2013] UKUT 0264 (LC) [not online yet we have a transcript] the Upper Tribunal considered the question of whether an insurance premium had been reasonable incurred.”
NearlyLegal, 11th June 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
“Forfeiture is, for the most part, beloved by landlords and hated/feared by tenants. For what might be relatively minor breaches of covenant, you can lose your lease and the landlord make an enormous windfall. The legislative trend is (slowly) in favour of restricting (and possibly even abolishing) forfeiture as demonstrated by s.168, Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. By s.168, Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, a landlord may not serve a notice under s.146, Law of Property Act 1925, or otherwise exercise a right of re-entry (i.e. forfeiture) in respect of a breach of a covenant (other than one to pay rent – which is unaffected by s.146, see s.146(11); or service/administration charges, which are dealt with under s.81, Housing Act 1996), unless the breach has been admitted by the tenant or determined by a court, LVT or arbitral tribunal.”
NearlyLegal, 3rd June 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
“The entrepreneurialisation of social housing over the last twenty years has led to a diversity in the types of shared ownership. Of course, the standard leasehold type (what in the old days was called DIYSO) predominates, but there are a multitude of other types. In Ker v Optima Community Association [2013] EWCA Civ 579, the Court of Appeal had to deal with one of these other types in Optima’s claim for possession; but in quite odd circumstances for, by the time of the hearing of the appeal, Ms Ker had accepted that the property was unaffordable for her so that she had to give up possession. What was in issue seems to have been whether she was entitled to return of some of the amounts she had paid. Patten LJ, who gave the only substantive judgment, held that she did not have such a claim and ordered possession.”
NearlyLegal, 25th May 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
“Residents of mobile home parks in England have been given new rights to protect them from rogue site operators.”
BBC News, 27th May 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“The Court of Appeal has dismissed a claim for leasehold enfranchisement by the occupiers of a mixed-use property, ruling that the property, part of which had been converted into a flat against the landlord’s wishes, was not a ‘house reasonably so called.”
OUT-LAW.com, 14th May 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“The Leasehold Reform Act 1967 gives qualifying long leaseholders of houses the right, inter alia, to acquire the freehold. The definition of ‘house’ is quite technical, but, in essence, it turns on whether it could reasonably be called a house (even if it could reasonably be called something else). There is a quite eye-watering amount of law on this issue, most recently Day v Hosebay Ltd; Howard de Walden v Lexgorge [2012] UKSC 41.”
NearlyLegal, 12th May 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
“When carrying out the hypothetical valuation of a property with development potential, pursuant to paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 to the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, the Upper Tribunal ought to have decided the legal position in respect of the legal rights and liabilities arising under various leases, rather than allow for uncertainty on those legal points, insofar as leaving them undetermined, by a discount for the risk.”
WLR Daily, 20th February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Hidden clauses in leasehold agreements cost unlucky leaseholders thousands, warns property lawyer Stephen Hill.”
The Guardian, 12th February 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“An option in an agreement which, if taken up, would lead to a tenancy was not ‘an agreement for a tenancy’ for the purposes of section 28(1) of the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995. Also, conditions precedent to the grant of lease were not covenants that were part of the agreement for a tenancy nor were they comprised within landlord and tenant covenants for the purposes of section 28. Therefore, in neither case did the burden of the obligation undertaken by the vendor transfer to the purchaser by virtue of the 1995 Act.”
WLR Daily, February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The LVT has no general power to award costs other than when an application is dismissed as frivolous or vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of process or a party has acted frivolously, vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably in connection with the proceedings. In such circumstances the costs are capped at £500: para 10 of Sch 12 to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act (‘CLRA’) 2002.”
Full story (PDF)
Tanfield Chambers, 8th January 2013
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
“For long leases, outside the provisions of s.11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the repairing obligation of the landlord is limited to the exact terms set out in the lease, as is the extent to which the landlord can recover the costs of repairs from the leaseholder. As anyone who has dealt with repairs on housing association shared ownership schemes where the housing association is itself a lessee of part of the building will know, this can be an utter nightmare, where the immediate landlord can seem to escape any repairing obligations whatsoever. But what if the lease terms themselves contain an apparent error?”
NearlyLegal, 9th December 2012
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
Souglides v Tweedie and another [2012] EWCA Civ 1546; [2012] WLR (D) 367
“The reference in section 9(1)(a) of the Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 1964 to ‘successors in title’ referred to successors in title to the lease to which the interest being conferred by the option was reversionary. Accordingly, the successor had to be a successor to the original lessee in respect of the same title, namely that lease.”
WLR Daily, 4th December 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“A notice served under section 27 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 had to spell out exactly what the applicants were complaining about and why they contended it was an appropriate case for the making of an acquisition order under section 29 of the Act.”
WLR Daily, 22nd November 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Part I of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 was designed to alter the balance between freeholders and their residential tenants, by giving the leaseholders the right to an extended lease or to compulsory acquisition of the freehold.”
Hardwicke Chambers, 16th November 2012
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
“A stamp duty land tax (SDLT) avoidance scheme which involved the interaction of the sub-sale and the partnership rules was effective, according to the Upper Tribunal.”
OUT-LAW.com, 8th November 2012
Source: www.out-law.com
“Gala Unity Ltd v Ariadne Road RTM Co Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1372 is important for those doing long leasehold work. I’m not entirely sure it’s right (or, perhaps a better way of putting it, I’m not sure it’s a good decision, it may be right within the statutory framework), but I’ll save that for the end. Since this is the first Right to Manage case to reach the Court of Appeal, I’ll set out some of the relevant background.”
NearlyLegal, 27th October 2012
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
“The appeal in Beitov Properties Ltd v Elliston Bentley Martin [2012] UKUT 133 (LC) highlights three issues for landlords: compliance with s47 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1987, remedying non-compliance, and the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal’s procedure and jurisdiction.”
Hardwicke Chambers, 12th October 2012
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024