Back to profile

Catherine Taskis

Called 1995
Download Full CV

Areas of practice All aspects of residential and commercial landlord and tenant and real property law; agricultural law.

Recent Cases

Nigel Monkman v. Peter J. Mitchelson and John D. Mitchelson, ALT/Y/S/59: Agricultural Land Tribunal (Yorkshire and North Humberside), September 1 2009. The issue for the Tribunal was whether Mr Monkman was eligible to be granted a new tenancy of a farm in North Yorkshire in succession to his father; in particular whether he satisfied the "livelihood test" contained in s.36(3)(a) of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986.

Andrew Duffield and another v. Winifred Gandy [2008] NPC 46.When considering an application to modify or discharge a restrictive covenant against building a residence in the garden of a property, the lands tribunal had been entitled to conclude that the practical benefits of the restriction to the neighbour were of substantial value or advantage by preventing the erection of a bungalow, which would also involve the ancillary use of the garden adjoining her property.

Cameron Ltd v. Rolls-Royce plc [2008] L & TR 22. A licence to occupy commercial premises granted under an agreement for lease pending the grant of the lease itself, was not severable from the lease, was granted in the context of the acquisition of a larger interest and therefore was not capable of amounting to a protected lease under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 Pt II.

J. D. Wetherspoon v. Jay Mar Estates [2007] BLR 285. A commercial tenant unsuccessfully invoked the Arbitration Act 1996 s.68(2) to remit a rent review arbitration award for reconsideration. The tenant had not established an irregularity and, even assuming an irregularity, there was no further evidence that would have made a substantial difference to the result. Accordingly, the ‘substantial injustice’ test in s.68 had not been met.

In Davies and others’ application [2001] 1 EGLR 111.A restrictive covenant was not obsolete merely because the person entitled to the benefit of it was prepared to negotiate terms for its release. An objection to an application under s.84(1)(c) Law of Property Act 1925 for the discharge or modification of such a covenant would inevitably fail if the only loss to the objector was the loss of any opportunity to share in the development value of the subject land.

Platt v London Underground Ltd, The Times 13.03.01 (derogation from grant of lease of a kiosk at exit of underground station by closure of exit)

Ropac Ltd v Intrepreneur Pub. Co (CPC) Ltd, [2001] L&TR 93 (the courts jurisdiction to extend time for compliance with a consent order under the CPR's)

In Davies Application [2001] 03 EG 134 (modification of restrictive covenant under ground (c) of S84 (1) of the Law of Property Act 1925)

McDonnell v Griffey [1998] EGCS 70 (declaratory relief as to the interpretation of a covenant refused where the exercise purely hypothetical).

Re Priceland Limited Waltham Forest London Borough Council v. Registrar of Companies [1997] 1 BCLC 467 (factors relevant to the exercise of the Court's discretion to restore a company to the Register under section 653 of the Companies Act 1985).