Top 3 Cases of June 2026 03 July 2026
Kroll Agency Services Ltd v Inlustrem Maritime Ltd [2026] EWHC 1453 (KB)
Summary
The High Court set aside charging orders on the basis that the entire beneficial interest in the property was held by the registered owner’s father.
Master Dagnall found on the facts of the case that the father had provided the monies for the acquisition of the property, not by way of a loan, such that he would be the beneficial owner under a presumed resulting trust unless the presumption of advancement applied. That presumption was rebutted on the facts, it having been shown that the father’s subjective intention was to retain beneficial ownership himself.
Why it’s important
The judgment contains a detailed survey of the authorities on the presumption of advancement and helpfully enumerates the applicable principles to be applied. Notably, it is suggested both that the presumption of advancement is relatively weak in modern times, and that there is no rule against admitting post-transaction events into evidence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Courtyard RTM Company Ltd v Rockwell (FC103) Ltd [2026] EWCA Civ 712
Summary
The Court of Appeal determined two appeals relating to what constitutes a self contained part of a building for the purposes of the right to manage, contained in the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.
The first appeal related to a modern development in Liverpool. There were multiple blocks, structurally connected by a podium, and with an open plan basement car park shared between them. Upholding the decision below, the Court of Appeal determined that each of the blocks did not constitute a self-contained part of a building, because of the vertically undivided nature of the car park; the requirement in s.72(3)(a) for ‘vertical division of the building’ was therefore not met.
The second appeal related to a terrace in London. One argument focused primarily on the requirement in s.72(3)(b) that “the structure of the building is such that it could be redeveloped independently of the rest of the building”. The Court of Appeal found that this requirement was met, notwithstanding that extensive works would be likely to require temporary support for the neighbouring properties.
Why it’s important
The Court of Appeal’s judgment is practical and pragmatic, with a particular focus on avoiding the difficulties associated with shared management arrangements. It emphasises that the vertical division test is a physical one and may be satisfied by a notional line, such that a terrace divided by a party wall is capable of being self-contained, whereas an open-plan car park is not. The court rejected the argument that shared foundations prevent vertical division, distinguishing the management of foundations from that of shared estate facilities. As for redevelopment, the court emphasised that the question is one of degree and does not require the assumption that the entire structure has been removed. The judgment is likely to prove a useful one for practitioners faced with these and similar issues.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kapadia v The Church Commissioners for England [2026] UKUT 220 (LC)
Summary
The Upper Tribunal determined an appeal concerning payability of residential service charges.
Specifically, the UT concluded, on the terms of the leases in question:
1. Where interim service charges were required to be estimated by a ‘surveyor’, that did not require that individual to hold any particular formal qualification. The choice of the landlord’s appointee would be open to challenge only in extreme circumstances, such as if the landlord appointed a dentist or a vet.
2. Balancing charges fell to be calculated by reference to a certain year end date. Annual accounts had to be prepared by reference to that specific date; it was not acceptable, contrary to the FTT’s determination, to require leaseholders to overpay for a few days and also pay the balancing charge when the preconditions had not been fulfilled.
3. No term could be implied varying fixed percentage contributions to a reasonable sum where the number of type of lettings on the estate had changed. It was far from obvious either that such a term should be implied or exactly what should trigger it, and it was relevant that the leases contained other provisions about reapportionment.
4. The provisions relating to payment of legal costs did not permit what the landlord had been doing, which was to finance disputes with leaseholders through the service charge and then reimburse the service charge account once costs were recovered from the leaseholder in question.
Why it’s important
Although each lease falls to be construed individually, this judgment provides a useful example of a number of issues which commonly arise in practice, and may be useful to practitioners construing other similar provisions.
Download: Top 3 Cases of June 2026
Back to articles
