Articles

The right to manage - when procedural slips are non-fatal (Lexham House RTM Company Ltd v European Investments & Development (Properties) Ltd)

Property disputes analysis: Tricia Hemans examines an Upper Tribunal (UT) decision that when the appellant served the respondent freeholder of a block of flats with notice of its intention to acquire the right to manage the property it did not need, in order to comply with section 79(6) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (CLRA 2002), to also serve notice on a second landlord of part of the property, which would not be affected by the appellant’s acquisition of the right.

Tricia Hemans

Download: The right to manage - when procedural slips are non-fatal (Lexham House RTM Company Ltd v European Investments & Development (Properties) Ltd)

Your flexible friend? Interim code rights (University of London v Cornerstone)

This article considers a further decision on the Electronic Communications Code, in Schedule 3A to the Communications Act 2003. In University of London v Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Ltd, the Court of Appeal considered whether there was a right to survey to determine whether a prospective site was suitable for installation of electronic communications apparatus, and whether a right could be sought on an interim basis without additional rights being sought as well. The Court of Appeal held that a right to survey was embraced within the right under paragraph 3(d) of the Code, and that there was no need for rights to be sought on a final basis. Written by Oliver Radley-Gardner, who acted as junior counsel for the respondent.

Oliver Radley-Gardner

Download: Your flexible friend? Interim code rights (University of London v Cornerstone)

Notice to Quit: s.27 (3) (f) or Case B?

Joe Ollech alongside Esther Stirling of Harrison Clark Rickerbys consider the recent case of Herefordshire DC v Bayliss and its impact on possession of tenanted land where development is intended. This article appears in Issue 98 of the ALA Bulletin.

Joseph Ollech

Download: Notice to Quit: s.27 (3) (f) or Case B?

Operators and occupiers—rights under the Electronic Communications Code (Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Ltd v Compton Beauchamp Estates Ltd)

Property Disputes analysis: The Court of Appeal endorsed the test proposed by the Upper Tribunal that an occupier for code purposes is ‘a question of fact rather than legal status; it means physical presence on and control of the land.’ Fern Horsfield-Schonhut, explains why the decision is of practical importance for operators seeking new code rights.