Insights

Briefcase 2024 quarter 2: key real estate cases and updates

Briefcase 2024 quarter 2: key real estate cases and updates

Jun 24, 2024
Download PDFDownload PDF
Print
Share

Case 1

Patel and others v Spender and others

“Thin end of the wedge” argument fends off application to modify covenant

The applicants sought to modify a covenant against external alterations relying on the “limited benefit” ground in section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

Read more >

 

Case 2

Davies v Bridgend County Borough Council

Supreme Court rejects claim for damages caused by Japanese knotweed

The Court held that the Council’s delay in treating Japanese knotweed did not cause the diminution in value of the claimant’s land.

Read more >

 

Case 3

Peachside Limited v (1) Mr Koon Yau Kee and (2) Mr Tak Chang Keung

Landlord cleans up after premises left looking like a “warzone with grease”

The substantial costs incurred by the landlord in rectifying the tenant’s disrepair are found to be recoverable in this terminal dilapidations claim, despite the tenant’s section 18 defences.

Read more >

 

Case 4

Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Limited v Medley Assets Limited

Sainsbury’s retreats into part of Camden site to defeat landlord’s redevelopment plans

Court ruling provides a new tactical option for tenants who can reduce their occupation of business premises in opposed lease renewal cases.

Read more >

 

New Law

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 (LAFRA)

Residential reform – new Act brings in major changes for leaseholders

The snap election led to LAFRA being rushed through Parliament. What changes will this bring, and when?

Read more >

 

Related Practice Areas

  • Real Estate Disputes

  • Commercial Real Estate

  • Litigation & Dispute Resolution

This material is not comprehensive, is for informational purposes only, and is not legal advice. Your use or receipt of this material does not create an attorney-client relationship between us. If you require legal advice, you should consult an attorney regarding your particular circumstances. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. This material may be “Attorney Advertising” under the ethics and professional rules of certain jurisdictions. For advertising purposes, St. Louis, Missouri, is designated BCLP’s principal office and Kathrine Dixon (kathrine.dixon@bclplaw.com) as the responsible attorney.