Archive for October 2011
On 19 October 2011, the Supreme Court (Lord Hope, Lord Walker, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke and Lord Wilson) released its decision in the joined cases of R (Davies & Anor) v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs and R (Gaines-Coop…
The Coalition’s proposed legislation this week has a marvellously retro feel to it. Sniff the air. Through the whiff of horse dung and open sewers, you can tell we are back in the days of Queen Anne and not solely because the lawfulness of the catholicity of a Monarch’s spouse was an issue deemed worth revisiting.
The Observer noted that a debate in the Lords on the Welfare Reform Bill gave rise to the prospect of the return of the window tax. The glorious proposals to cut the benefits of under-occupiers, so that they have to find a less commodious garrett, gives rise to the question of what constitutes a … Read the full post
In which we discover what happens when an RSL serves a notice confirming an assured tenancy after serving a s.21 notice on an assured shorthold tenant.
Saxon Weald Homes Ltd v Chadwick  EWCA Civ 1202
Mr Chadwick had been given an AST by Saxon Weald as a ‘probationary tenancy’ on 11 August 2008. The tenancy agreement stated that if no steps for possession had been taken within 12 months, including service of notice requiring possession or notice seeking possession, it would automatically become an assured periodic tenancy at that time. Otherwise, it would remain a periodic AST. THe clause also stated “if the tenancy converts to a fully assured… Read the full post
I’ve got to admit it, I’ve fallen for HHJ Behrens. I’ve no knowledge of him, have never appeared before him, and have only read his written words, but he just seems to be that type of property lawyer who is also human. He is developing something of an expertise in sale and rentback transactions, for which I have a degree of empathy for him as well as have considerable interest in. He did the re North East Property Buyers litigation, which we noted and commented on. I think HHJ Behrens was spot-on – it’s for the Supreme Court to interfere with the basic principles adumbrated in Abbey National… Read the full post
September saw 2 interesting decisions made by the Upper Chamber (Lands Tribunal) concerning Right to Manage (RTM) applications.
In the first case re 15 Yonge Park a claim notice under section 80 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 was serv…
One thing you could never accuse the Right to Manage legislation of being is “user friendly”. In Gala Unity Ltd v Ariadne Road Rtm Co Ltd  UKUT 425 (LC), the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) (in the person of that very nice chap, the President) has, however, tried to solve one of the more perplexing drafting problems to arise from the awful provisions that are the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.
Gala Properties Ltd was the freehold owner of, inter alia, a modern development consisting of two blocks of flats and two free-standing coach houses, which were themselves flats with parking spaces. The leases provided for various categories… Read the full post
Tricky things, ex parte interim injunctions. Dealt with on the papers, or possibly by a phone hearing with a duty Judge, there is little time for detail and, obviously, no argument from the other side. Which makes it all the more important that the applicant gets things right. We noted some stern words on failure to follow protocol and failure to disclose material facts from Munby J here.
A further warning on the nature and extent of disclosure of material facts comes in R (On the application of Konodyba) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea  EWHC 2653 (Admin [Not on Bailii]. The case also involves the jurisdiction… Read the full post