Speakers' Corner

In the recent case of Szepietowski v The Serious Organised Crime Agency [2013] UKSC 65, the Supreme Court has reviewed the equitable doctrine of marshalling. There are comparatively few reported cases in this area, and the Szepietowski case therefore provides useful guidance as to when a second secured creditor will be entitled to rely on the doctrine.

The 3 recent break clause cases of Friends Life v Siemens Hearing (3 April 2014), Friends Life v A&A Express (9 May 2014) and M&S v BNP Paribas (14 May 2014) have all highlighted omissions or practical difficulties caused by the drafting of the break clauses in the Leases.

The recent Supreme Court decision in Coventry v Lawrence [2014] UKSC 13 raises interesting points relating to the tort of private nuisance and the remedies available to a successful Claimant, primarily in respect of nuisance arising from noise, but of wider importance on the issue of damages being granted in lieu of injunctive relief.

Property lawyers have not generally needed to take a great deal of notice of Human Rights law. Particularly in the field of commercial property the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 has been fairly minimal. The reason for this is that the HRA 1998 does not, generally, impose any obligations on private individuals. In the lexicon of human rights jargon, the effect of the Act is vertical not horizontal; that is to say it regulates relations between state and citizen and not between private individuals or companies.

1. In negotiations or proceedings for the renewal of a lease, parties often focus on the level of rent, the length of the new term, break options, rent review provisions and what “reasonable modernisation” entails. The extent of the demised premises and the treatment of fixtures installed during the previous terms(s) are not usually in the spotlight. In this short article the question is posed as to whether greater care needs to be given to the treatment of fixtures added during the earlier term: is there a real risk that tenants may inadvertently lose their right to remove their fixtures at the expiry of the new lease (or that landlords may inadvertently become burdened at the end of the term with fixtures that they did not bargain for and have to pay to be removed)?

The new law on criminal trespass has produced a significant body of interest regarding its interplay with squatter’s rights including applications by squatters for registration under Schedule 6 of the Land Registration Act 2002; the focus of this article.

When a landlord retains a flat in a block which is subject to a collective enfranchisement claim, it can claim a leaseback of it. However, unless the landlord is a local authority or housing association, the landlord must make sure that a leaseback is proposed in its counter-notice otherwise the right will be lost.

This paper deals principally with the question when is it correct to grant damages in lieu of an injunction? The question is asked in the context of rights of light matters.

This article considers in what circumstances costs in service charge disputes in the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)1 (“the Tribunal”) can be recovered

Whilst substantial dilapidations claims on lease expiry (“terminal dilapidations claims”) are extremely commonplace these days, and take up a large element of a property litigator’s workload, these claims rarely proceed to trial and reported Judgments are, therefore, somewhat rare and far apart. The last Judgment of note prior to this year being PGF II SA-v- Royal & Sun Alliance PLC which was decided in 2010.