Preedy v Dunne (02 October 2015 – A beneficiary’s defence of proprietary estoppel to a claim for an order for possession of a pub failed. The trustees of a will had neither promised that loans that the beneficiary had made to the pub business would be repaid from the sale of the pub nor that he could stay in the pub for as long as he wished.
Cain v Islington LBC – 25 September 2015 – Where a tenant challenged the reasonableness of service charges paid during the previous 12 years, the tribunal considered the meaning and effect of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.27A(5). The provision did not prevent a tribunal from inferring from a series of payments made without protest that the tenant had agreed that the amount claimed was the amount properly payable; the provision only precluded the tribunal from inferring agreement from a single payment.
The London Legal Walk took place on 18th May 2015, raising funds for legal advice charities which help deal with debt problems, homelessness and caring for the elderly. The CG Naylor team was proud to enter the event and fundraise for an important cause.
Cohabitant had 25% beneficial interest in solely owned property where financial contribution insignificant (Court of Appeal). In Graham-York v York and others  EWCA Civ 72, the Court of Appeal upheld a finding that a cohabitant had a 25% beneficial interest in a property solely owned by her partner, where her financial contribution was insignificant, but she had made domestic contributions.
The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) has published details of its intended reforms to the rules that restrict Londoners from renting out their homes on a short-term basis.
Are monitoring costs in a section 106 agreement capable of being a planning obligation in their own right? (High Court)
The High Court has held that an agent had sufficient authority to enter into a personal guarantee and indemnity (contract) on the principal’s behalf, based on the parties’ twenty-year working relationship and previous course of dealings.
The Court of Appeal has considered whether an intermediate landlord (K) was in breach of his implied statutory covenant to keep the structure and exterior of a dwelling-house in repair under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
The Court of Appeal has held that property owners owed each other a duty of care in circumstances where a dividing (and supporting) garden wall collapsed onto land that abutted the wall, which was owned by one of them.