Education & Training Resources

The landlord's intention for the purposes of Ground (f) and (g) of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1954 (given the Court of Appeal decisions in Gulf Agency Ltd v Ahmed and Hough v Greathall Ltd)

Will a rectification claim be successful in each of these scenarios?

It is reassuring to know that someone, somewhere, has taken the time and effort to apply the precision and ingenuity of parliamentary draftsmanship in order to define, at least for the purposes of the FWMA 2010 if no other, what is meant by a flood (and what it is not).

Nature Of Forfeiture

The top 10 things to think about: Thinking outside the box: deceit as a stand-alone basis for a claim. Deceit: the closest we get to pure allegation of fraud.

Big Property Ltd has identified a potentially valuable development site, but does not wish to take the risk of developing the site on its own. It identifies Major Developer Plc as a potential joint venture partner. Major Developer is a particularly attractive partner for Big Property, as it has plenty of relevant experience, having just completed a similar development of its own.

In the cases of GOOD HARVEST V CENTAUR [2010] Ch 426 and K/S VICTORIA STREET V HOUSE OF FRASER (STORES MANAGEMENT) LTD [2012] Ch 497 first the High Court and then the Court of Appeal had to grapple with what had previously been a much debated question.

The ability to apply to the Court for a summary order for possession pursuant to CPR Part 55 against “persons unknown” is a well-known and established procedure. It is intended to provide a quick and easy scheme for a landowner to recover possession of property from unwanted and unauthorised occupiers. Nevertheless, the urgent circumstances in which such orders have often been obtained may not have been the best of contexts for the development of a clear and consistent body of jurisprudence or guidance on this important summary procedure

What can a sixteenth century lease teach us about twenty-first century landlord and tenant problems?

Much like London buses, cases on particular property law issues often come in clusters. This summer it was the turn of relief from forfeiture the principles of which were considered by the Court of Appeal on no less than three occasions in Magnic v Ul-Hassan and anor [2015] EWCA Civ 224, Safin (Fursecroft) Limited v Badrig [2015] EWCA Civ 739 and Freifeld v West Kensington Court Limited [2015] EWCA Civ 806. This paper considers where those decisions have taken us and tentatively questions whether that is a good place for us to be.