Insights

Briefcase 2025 Quarter 1: Key Real Estate Cases and Updates

Briefcase 2025 Quarter 1: Key Real Estate Cases and Updates

Mar 25, 2025
Download PDFDownload PDF
Print
Share

Light shining into a commercial property

Case 1: Handston Investments Limited v Abri Group Limited

The court refused to grant an interim injunction to pause construction that would significantly interfere with a neighbour’s rights to light. Instead, the Court ordered an expedited trial.

Watch/listen >

Read more >

A meadow on a summer day

Case 2: Beeches Capital v Hunt & Ors

The Upper Tribunal granted the modification of a restrictive covenant, which prevented the erection of non-agricultural buildings, to allow a rural business and enterprise hub to be built.

Watch/listen >

Read more >

A moth on fabric

Case 3: Iya Patarkatsishvili and Yevhen Hunyak v William Woodward-Fisher

A sale contract of a high-value residential property in London was reversed because the seller had given false replies about the extent of a moth infestation.

Watch/listen >

Read more >

Someone putting a letting into a post box.

Case 4: Khan v D’Aubigny

Documents that the landlord was required by statute to serve on the tenant before serving a section 21 notice were deemed served under the notice provisions of the AST.

Watch/listen >

Read more >

Arial view of a residential street. All gardens are separated by hedgerows.

Case 5: Stiaan van Zyl and Tersia van Zyl v Peter James Walker-Smith

A couple who removed a shared hedge and replaced it with a fence, without their neighbour’s agreement, are found to have committed trespass,  and are ordered to pay damages and costs.

Watch/listen >

Read more >

Related Practice Areas

  • Real Estate Disputes

  • Real Estate

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.