News and Articles

Guarantors can sometimes enjoy a lucky escape from their liabilities by benefiting from agreements they are not even a party to.

It is essential for an occupier to have been granted exclusive occupation of land for a tenancy to be created.

Landlords may be liable to repay unexpended service charge contributions back to their tenants at the end of their Leases.

Service Charge Certificates may not be binding as they can be challenged by tenants if the Surveyor or Accountant who had provided the Certificate has misinterpreted the lease provisions.

The definition of “house” in s.2(1) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 has given rise to considerable difficulties in the 45 years since it was enacted. This year, there have been two further appellate decisions on the definition – Hosebay v Day [2012] 1 WLR 2884 in the Supreme Court (where Lord Carnwath gave the only judgment) and Magnohard Ltd v Cadogan [2012] L. & T.R. 32 in the Court of Appeal (where both Lewison LJ and Lord Neuberger gave judgments). Where do those decisions leave the law?

A property owner was required to pay substantial sums to a Church Council for the repair of the chancel of its parish church.

Obtaining a favourable outcome for a client involved in a property dispute very often depends upon the quality of the opinion evidence provided in support of their case. The most obvious instances are surveyors providing valuation evidence in the context of lease renewals and rent review arbitrations or surveying evidence in the context of dilapidation claims. More often than not, the outcome of the dispute turns upon how favourably the Judge or arbitrator views the evidence that each party provides. Consequently, it is essential to ensure that the expert evidence is of the best possible quality.

A tenant of premises that were originally used for mixed business and residential purposes failed in his claim for rights as a protected residential tenant.

Mistakes in documentation need to be avoided as they cannot easily be corrected once the deal is done.

The High Court has held that a sub-contractor can rely on its standard terms and conditions so as to substantially limit its liability for damages in relation to any defective work for which it is held responsible.