Articles

Many landlord and tenant cases involve expert evidence and the majority of independent experts act impeccably. In a recent case involving a business lease renewal and another involving dilapidations, judges have, however, found significant cause to criticise experts for their failure to understand the scope of their duties and role. The consequences were serious for those concerned. A salutary reminder of the critical importance of compliance with CPR Pt 35 for all those instructing and instructed.

• Janet Bignell KC

In this series of articles, we aim to highlight 3 of the most interesting cases in our field decided in the past month. This month: the Upper Tribunal’s jurisdiction to set aside an order purportedly modifying leasehold covenants; the Court of Appeal on whether a joint tenancy or tenancy in common is to be presumed when land is bought for business purposes; and the Upper Tribunal on 2 aspects of the Electronic Communications Code, which casts doubt on the position adopted in some texts about the 1954 Act.

• Stephanie Tozer KC
• Fern Schofield

The Building Safety Act 2022 does not directly impose many duties on landlords of non higher-risk buildings to do fire safety or anti-collapse works. Rather, the sources of such duties are: Landlord covenants in leases; S84 for higher risk buildings, where the landlord is an accountable person; and The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (as amended) for fire-risks. Paul Letman and Cecily Crampin consider the sources of duties in more detail.

• Paul Letman
• Cecily Crampin

In Waller-Edwards v One Savings Bank Plc [2023] EWHC 2386 (Ch) the High Court considered the previously undecided point of whether a lender will be fixed with constructive notice of undue influence, rendering a charge vulnerable to being set aside, in circumstances where only part of a mortgage loan is provided for the sole benefit of one of two borrowers in a non-commercial relationship. This is an article by Tricia Hemans, a version of which was originally published by Lexis Nexis.

• Tricia Hemans

Knowledge of a Form K beneficial charging order restriction is not enough for a conveyancing solicitor to be fixed with a constructive trust or dishonest assistance liability in relation to the proceeds of sale. On 9 February 2024, Master McQuail gave oral judgment in Dattani & Anr v Rasheed & Ors striking out relevant paragraphs the Claimants’ statements of case against a conveyancing solicitor pleaded on the above grounds. Cecily Crampin appeared for the successful applicant.

• Cecily Crampin