A game changing decision in landlord and tenant law whilst in lockdown?
In amongst the peace and quiet of the sunny days of lockdown has come a judgment of the Supreme Court that could turn on its head how flats held under long leases are owned and managed.
In Forbes v Wokingham BC (QBD (Admin)), the Council successfully defended a challenge to its decision to refuse to register land as a new town or village green.
The court upheld a High Court finding that an area of land on a working quayside had been properly registered as a town or village green.
For the purposes of zero-rating under the Value Added Tax Act 1994 Sch.8 Pt II Group 5, a grant of a major interest in a site which was not related to a completed building or a building in the course of construction could not be zero-rated.
The following guest post on ‘Heathrow Runway Expansion: Economic Prosperity or Legal Minefield?’ was written for Naylor, Solicitors by Yelena Zagloul.
First Tower Trustees Ltd v CDS (Superstores International) Ltd: Contractual estoppel and non-reliance clauses were not immune from scrutiny under the Misrepresentation Act 1967 s.3. Such clauses could not prevent liability arising if they failed to satisfy the reasonableness test under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 s.11(1). Accordingly, a landlord was not permitted to rely on a clause in a lease restricting its liability for representations, where it had misrepresented to the tenant that it had no knowledge of environmental problems affecting the property, when in fact it was aware of asbestos problems. Click here for more information.
Villarosa v Ryan: A notice given by personal representatives of the tenant to a registered leasehold flat, pursuant to the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 s.42, was not invalidated by s.42(4A) of that Act even though the notice was given more than two years after the date of the grant of probate. The executors were qualifying tenants who had owned the lease for more than two years and did not need to rely on the special provision in s.39(3A), which conferred an individual right to enfranchisement on the personal representatives of a deceased tenant. Click here for more information.
Whitehall Court London Ltd v Crown Estate Commissioners (CA): on whether the “no-Act rights” assumption, whereby rights conferred by the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 were disregarded when valuing the premium payable to purchase an extended lease, applied to an individual flat, or the entire building, for the purposes of calculating the apportionment of the premium between the head landlord and the freeholder. Click here for more information.
MPs including Helen Hayes, MP for Dulwich and West Norwood, have asked ministers not to make further court closures, following consultation in February 2018 on the closure of eight courts.
Secretary of State for Justice David Gauke told the House of Commons on 6 March 2018 that courts were only closed when the Government is satisfied that access to justice is maintained, but Ms Hayes contended that this was not the case in her constituency, where closures had seen constituents diverted to another court, described by lawyers as a “chaotic environment”.
Generator Developments Ltd v Lidl UK GmbH / Judgment Date: 08 March 2018: The Court of Appeal summarised the law applicable to equitable claims based on Pallant v Morgan  Ch. 43,  C.L.Y. 3571. A property development company, which had been negotiating a joint venture with a supermarket for the purchase of land, did not have an interest in the land under Pallant v Morgan principles when the supermarket had purchased it before the joint venture was finalised.