A notice under the Law of Property Act 1925 s.146 could only be validly served if a right of re-entry to leasehold premises had arisen through a particular breach under the provisions of the lease having occurred. There was no authority for the proposition that a s.146 notice could be served before the relevant right to re-entry had occurred, on the basis of an anticipated breach.
For more information see the England and Wales High Court (Queen’s Bench Division) Decisions.
This article reviews the following case: Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) – Leaseholders of Foundling Court and O’Donnell Court v The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Camden and Others, 25th July 2016 ( UKUT 0366 (LC)).
In a landmark decision, the Court of Appeal has declared that RTM companies can only acquire the right to manage one building at a time.
Sections 47(1) and 47(2) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) require service charge demands to contain the landlord’s name and address.
A dispute arose recently out of the design and construction of the Rolls Building, the sparkly new-ish home to the Technology and Construction Court. So, perhaps uniquely, the Court heard a dispute about the Court housing the trial.
The High Court recently considered the oft-vexed question of the validity of notices served by a tenant to exercise a contractual break clause.
Law & Lease is a barrister’s blog about residential service charges, written by Amanda Gourlay of Tanfield Chambers in London.
23rd February case – Raja v Aviram  UKUT 102 (LC) – this case concerned a covenant against cutting a wall without landlord’s consent. However, holes were cut by a contractor to enable a new boiler to be installed. The Tribunal looked at the relevance of the tenant’s knowledge and the relevance of the landlord’s failure to provide a contact address and section 168(4), Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.
11 February 2016 – Triplerose Ltd Re Forth Banks Tower  UKUT 77 (LC) – very interesting appeal case about the application of the principle of law known as the indemnity principle to the entitlement of a landlord to be paid costs incurred in consequence of a claim to exercise the right to manage under Part 2 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.
The Gulf Agencies Ltd v Ahmed  EWCA Civ 44 (03 February 2016) – this case related to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 – the tenant brought proceedings for the grant of a new tenancy. The landlord resisted the application on the ground set out in section 30(1)(g), that he intended to occupy the premises for the purposes of a business to be carried on by him at the premises and whether the landlord had established his entitlement to rely on section 30(1)(g).