Jonathan has recently been instructed in the following areas:
Restrictive covenants, rights of way and rights of light
Jonathan advises many developers and owners on both easements and the true ambit of restrictive covenants. He appeared for the Defendant recently in 89 Holland Park v Hicks (2013) where the court held that the neighbouring owners could not unreasonably withhold consent to development plans. In the recent Couper litigation (2013) he acted for the Port of London Authority which successfully resisted all the Claimants’ many claims against it, including mooring rights.
Development, financing and overage agreements
Much of Jonathan’s work consists of advising on the true construction of development, financing and overage provisions. He appeared for the Claimant in the High Court in Dorchester v Frogmore (2013), which concerned the limits of a lender’s powers under a complex suite of interlocking finance and overage agreements.
Vendor and Purchaser disputes
During the recession Jonathan acted for many parties to development agreements (typically in the context of purchasers attempting to extricate themselves). He appeared in the Privy Council in such a case in Lancashire v MS Frontier (2012) and also in the High Court in Accor v MS Extra (2011). Both cases concerned the true construction of termination provisions. Samarenko v Dawn Hill in the Court of Appeal (2011) concerned the effect of the late payment of a deposit.
Having been instructed in the leading case of Pye v Graham, Jonathan is frequently instructed in adverse possession litigation. He appeared for the successful appellant in the Privy Council in Higgs v Lechal (2009) and also for Port of London Authority in the recent Couper litigation (2013) which established, among other things, that it was not possible adversely to possess the River Thames.
Jonathan frequently advises both land owners and operators in the knotty problems which can arise under the Electronic Communications Code, particularly where development of the site is in the offing. He appeared for the landowner in the most recent case on the Electronic Communications Code: Bridgewater v Geo Networks (2011).
Jonathan has been instructed in a number of claims against solicitors including the following. He recently appeared for claimant who successfully resisted an attempt to strike out the negligence claim on the grounds that the limitation period had expired: St Anselm v Slaughter & May (2013). He is currently retained in an action concerning the drafting of a lease for a newly-developed hotel. He is also retained in a claim against both solicitors and counsel for the negligent conduct of a trial.
Landlord and tenant disputes
Naturally Jonathan appears and advises in a variety of landlord and tenant work. For example he appeared in one of the recent tenant break clause cases (Canonical v Millbank (2012)); he was recently retained by Associated Newspapers in their case concerning the unreasonable withholding of consent to assign their Docklands’ print works; he acted for the successful landlord in the court of appeal case of Patel v K & J Restaurants (2011), concerning forfeiture.
Jonathan appeared for the successful claimant in the well known case of PGF v Royal Sun Alliance (2010), one of the largest dilapidation claims in recent years.
Jonathan often appears in rent review cases. Valuation principals also arise in overage disputes and, in one such case, he successfully challenged the finality of an expert’s decision: Aviva v Kestrel (2012).
Hong Kong and Commonwealth
Jonathan has also advised on various property-related matters in Hong Kong (for the Government and for private companies) and various islands in the Caribbean including the Bahamas, Bermuda, St Vincent and Trinidad & Tobago. He has appeared on several occasions in the privy Council and was also recently called to the Bar in Bermuda where he conducted a ratings case, in both their Supreme Court and Court of Appeal.