Property cases

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.

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.

A tenant of mixed business and residential premises failed to show that he benefited from statutory rights as a residential tenant to resist eviction.

Tenants who no longer occupy or require let premises cannot force their landlords to take them back before the end of their leases.

Professional advisers need to be pro-active in taking steps to avoid wholly disproportionate costs being incurred in relation to minor disputes between neighbours.

A Council document was held not to be a certificate of lawful use and, therefore, could not be used to resist a planning enforcement notice.

Parties to property disputes need to be sure as to the merits of their expert and his/her evidence before they commence costly proceedings.