Introduction
Welcome to the February edition of Gatehouse property team newsletter. We have got some really interesting articles this month. Gemma de Cordova gives us a summary of Mate v Mate [2023] EWHC 238 (Ch) and Lina Mattsson gives an overview of Assethold Ltd v Eveline Road RTM Co Ltd [2023] UKUT 26 (LC).
Jamal Demachkie and Priya Gopal also consider the recent High Court appeal in Man Limited v Back Inn Time Diner Limited [2023] EWHC 363 (Ch), which concerned the proper application of the intention to redevelop test under section 30(1)(f) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.
You can catch up on our recent webinars below, and don’t miss my two minute interview with Faisel Sadiq.
We’re heading to MIPIM again this year. Get in touch if you’d like to meet up in Cannes.
By way of update of some of the matters mentioned in last month’s newsletter and generally:
- Renter’s Reform: on 20 February 2023 Michael Gove was asked some questions regarding the long promised renter’s reform bill and that bill is still promised by the end of this parliamentary session, May 2023;
- Nuisance: we finally had long awaited Tate modern decision which has already received much commentary. Click here to watch Gatehouse’s view and here to read the article on the matter;
- More about nuisance: on 3 February 2023 the Court of Appeal found that the encroachment of Japanese knotweed onto a neighbour’s land and allowed damages in nuisance for diminution in value of the property: Davies v Bridgend County Borough Council [2023] EWCA Civ 80 (03 February 2023) (bailii.org)
- Building Safety Act consultation: an update on the current consultations Building Safety Consultations – Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities – Citizen Space;
- Practice direction 55C possession claims and Covid: with effect from 31 January 2023 practice direction 55C was revoked;
- For those of you who do service charge work we also had this Supreme Court decision: Aviva Investors Ground Rent GP Ltd and another (Respondents) v Williams and others (Appellants) – The Supreme Court
- Rakusen (Respondent) v Jepsen and others (Appellants): the Supreme Court held that a Rent Repayment Order cannot be made against a superior or head landlord.
Laura Tweedy – Editor
Activity report – what have our team been up to?
Laura Tweedy has been really enjoying mediating a lot this month and managed to get every one settled. She has been drafting a private criminal prosecution for failure to produce service charge documents under s 21 and s25 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 – fun! She has been advising on a few harassment cases and a right to buy fraud. She is really looking forward to MIPIM.
James Hall has also been mediating in a high value property/construction/insurance case and has been advising again on a property owner impostor fraud case and dealing with a claim against negligent monitoring surveyors. Sadly, he will not be at MIPIM!
David Peachey has been working on a multi-party dispute about family property going back generations, involving express and implied trusts and a lot of disagreements over who expected what from whom.
Carl Brewin has been dealing with proprietary estoppel, boundary/neighbour claims and advising on rent review provisions this month. As much fun as they have all been, he is very much looking forward to skiing in mid-March and keeping fingers and toes crossed for good snow and weather.
Clare Anslow has been working on easements, TOLATA and boundary disputes this month. She seems to have lots of sensible clients at the moment with most of her cases settling although she is secretly disappointed not to have the fun of taking them to trial.
Brie Stevens-Hoare KC has been focussed on leases that do not match the buildings they relate to and trust monies being spent on works they should not be spent on. We are not sure if it was the time thinking about the enforcement of promotion agreements and memoranda of understanding executed as a deeds that knocked her out or Covid – but she is back now.
Jamal Demachkie has had a chambers-centric month, leading Priya Gopal in a High Court 1954 Act appeal, and taking part in a mediation against Steven Woolf with John de Waal KC as mediator (and which settled a 21-year long neighbour dispute).
John de Waal KC has been involved in an unopposed lease renewal claim where the key issue was whether the new lease should have a redevelopment break clause.
Andrew Skelly obtained a Limited Civil Restraint Order against a litigant who has issued myriad applications over the years, since the FtT found against her in 2018. The fact that she withdrew her latest 6 applications at the start of the hearing did not dissuade the judge from finding and recording that they were all totally without merit. In other news, Andrew has had a month of misrepresentation, with three clients seeking to rescind post completion.
The mediation that Jamal mentions was not the only neighbour related dispute Steven Woolf dealt with this month. He also drafted proceedings relating to breaches of a restrictive covenant not to park commercial vehicles and caravans on a residential property, advised as to damages following a substantial interference over a right of way and discouraged his client from moving a fence based on some very uncertain markings on a Land Registry document.
Daniel Gatty successfully obtained a declaration in the High Court to the effect that his client’s successors-in-title would not be bound by overage provisions. He has also been busy with cases concerning breach of an option agreement, allegedly forged mortgages and (alleged) conveyancing negligence, and with an application for security for costs, amongst other things.
Lina Mattsson has been arguing about prescriptive easements and adverse possession in the FTT. She has also managed to squeeze in a trip to Sweden and ice-skate on a frozen lake – terrifying. Will bring ice picks next time, just in case.
This month Gemma de Cordova has been busy with rights of way; a dilapidations claim; bringing to an end (fingers crossed) a long running collective enfranchisement dispute; and applying successfully to set aside a judgment entered against her (relieved) clients.
MIPIM 2023
Gatehouse Chambers’ barristers and staff will be at MIPIM again this year between 14-17 March 2023. Do get in touch if you or some of your colleagues will be there too and would like to meet up. Find out more here.
Events
Unintelligent use of artificial intelligence: professional negligence and AI (in-person seminar)
18th April 2023
Daniel Gatty, Priya Gopal, William Golightly and Thomas Mitty will be discussing the developing challenges that AI presents in a professional negligence context, including:
- The increasing role of AI in the property, insurance and legal sectors
- The extent to which industry guidance will inform AI-related liability
- How the courts have already grappled with these issues
To register your interest in this event, please email events@gatehouselaw.co.uk.
Anatomy of a Land Dispute (in-person seminar)
11 May 2023
With Brie Stevens-Hoare, Daniel Gatty, Gemma de Cordova, Emily Betts, Lina Mattsson and Adam Smith-Roberts.
To register your interest in this event, please email events@gatehouselaw.co.uk.
Gatehouse Chambers on Demand
You can catch up on our previous webinars and Brews by visiting the insights page on our website.
Case Summary: Mate v Mate [2023] EWHC 238 (Ch)
Farming family disputes have been back in the spotlight in the past month with the High Court handing down its decision in Mate v Mate [2023] EWHC 238 (Ch). Over the course of 7 days, in the latter part of 2022, Andrew Sutcliffe KC considered claims founded in proprietary estoppel and unjust enrichment pursued by Julie Mate against her mother (Shirley) and two brothers (Robert and Andrew).
Click here to read the full case summary by Gemma de Cordova.
Man Limited v Back Inn Time Diner Limited [2023] EWHC 363 (Ch)
Jamal Demachkie and Priya Gopal consider the recent High Court appeal in Man Limited v Back Inn Time Diner Limited [2023] EWHC 363 (Ch) which concerned the proper application of the intention to redevelop test under section 30(1)(f) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.
Read their article here.
Did you see? You may have missed Assethold Ltd v Eveline Road RTM Co Ltd [2023] UKUT 26 (LC)
The appellant was the freehold owner of the property. The respondent had applied to acquire the right to manage (RTM) the property pursuant to the RTM provisions in Pt II Ch.1 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (“the Act”). The key questions for the FTT was whether property qualified as “relevant premises “, which means either a self-contained building or a self-contained part of a building within the meaning s.72(3) of the Act.
Click here to read the full case summary by Lina Mattsson.
2 minutes with Faisel Sadiq
Laura Tweedy interviews Faisel Sadiq for the second video in our ‘2 minutes with…’ series.
Contact us
If you would like to discuss any of the topics in this newsletter, please contact a member of our Practice Management Team:
James Duncan-Hartill, Practice Director
Patrick Sarson, Senior Practice Manager
Samuel Read, Practice Manager
To find out more about our Property Team and their work, visit the property page on our website. To view a copy of our privacy statement, please click here.
This edition of the property newsletter was edited by Laura Tweedy. Comments or queries about this newsletter? Please get in touch with her!
If you are reading this but do not receive our mailings and would like to, please click here.