Property Newsletter: June 2026
Introduction
Hello and welcome to the June edition of the Gatehouse Chambers property newsletter. The team seem to have had a particularly good showing in the Upper Tribunal and High Court recently, as well as dealing with various costs issues on appeal to the High Court and in the Court of Appeal. Meanwhile many of us have found ourselves in cases alongside our colleagues, either leading or being led by others in the team or – slightly less cordially – being pitched against each other in some of the most interesting property cases of the moment.
On a lighter note, many of us were at UKREiiF in Leeds. It was wonderful to be able to catch up with so many of you there, and for those who we weren’t able to see there is always next year. We hope you enjoy the newsletter and, of course, the spring weather.
Property Newsletter - Full Audio
News
David Peachey recognised in Mondaq’s Thought Leadership Awards
We are pleased to report that David Peachey has been recognised in Mondaq’s Thought Leadership Awards for Spring 2026.
The awards are broken down across multiple countries and topic areas. Award winners are calculated based on the total readership an individual article has received in the previous 6 months.
David has been recognised in the Real Estate category for his contributions to Gatehouse Chambers’ Property Newsletter, which has recently expanded to include a recorded segment for audio listeners.
Many congratulations to David!
John Clargo represents claimant in neighbour trespass and harassment dispute
John Clargo acted for the Claimant in a neighbour dispute concerning access to a passageway leading to a garden at the rear of a residential property in north London.
The case arose from a long‑running disagreement between the Claimant and her neighbours over the use of a passageway forming part of the Claimant’s property, which had previously been used by other residents to access the garden. The Claimant withdrew consent for use of the passageway citing privacy concerns, following which the dispute escalated.
The Claimant brought proceedings alleging harassment and trespass. The court heard evidence that the gate securing the passageway had been forced on two occasions and that a lock had been changed without the Claimant’s knowledge. The dispute led the Claimant to seek injunctive relief.
At a hearing in the County Court, the judge granted relief in the Claimant’s favour and ordered the Defendants to pay approximately £20,000 in legal costs. In giving judgment, the court found that the forced entry to the passageway justified a costs order on the indemnity basis notwithstanding it was an application for interim relief.
The case has been covered extensively in the UK press, including:
John Clargo acted for the Claimant, instructed by Janice Northover at Northover Litigation.
Learn more about John’s expertise here: https://gatehouselaw.co.uk/barrister/john-clargo/
What have we been up to?
Brie Stevens-Hoare KC is hugely grateful to Charlotte John and Victoria Dacie-Lombardo for their exemplary work on their very difficult pro bono trusts of land/restitutionary claims matter. The flavour of this month has been disputed early termination of options to purchase development month. So the next month or so will be focused on Part 8 proceeding in those. Brie was grateful for the long weekend to recover from 4 full on days at UKREiiF – before thinking about booking her accommodation for next year.
Andrew Skelly successfully defended a freeholder/landlord in a novel 4-day trial in which the leaseholder alleged that by referring, in the LPE1, to historic breaches and complaints, the landlord had caused a sale to be lost and rendered the flat unsaleable; the leaseholder alleged that the landlord was thereby in breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment. The Judge dismissed the claim in its entirety, finding that the landlord had acted appropriately. Otherwise, Andrew has been advising and trying to reach settlement at mediation in two cases involving commercial developments, with issues relating to the Building Act 2022 and The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.
Peter Petts has been booking his trip to Leipzig [An admirably pithy submission, Mr Petts – Ed.]
Faisel Sadiq and Philip Marriott were in the Court of Appeal on an expedited appeal on whether an option is an agreement for a new lease for the purposes of s.28 of the 1954 Act.
Jamal Demachkie has been arguing security for costs in an appeal to the CA, and had an entertaining couple of days in Manchester debating the legal niceties of rescission, unreasonable refusal of consent and the standard conditions of sale… somewhat esoteric but very enjoyable!
Carl Brewin has enjoyed being involved with two mediations this month, both of which were successful and settled, and has also advised on notices to complete, tricky trusts of land and partnership property disputes and dealt with service charge disputes.
David Peachey found out he won an appeal to the Upper Tribunal about whether income from a guest suite in a retirement home should be credited to the service charge, and won an appeal to the High Court against a circuit judge’s costs order in a complex property fraud case. He also had an outing to the High Court in Manchester, arguing over major amendments to pleadings in a long-running case due for trial later this year.
Charlotte John has enjoyed collaborating with Brie Stevens-Hoare KC and Victoria Dacie-Lombardo in a case involving trusts of land and restitutionary claims in the context of domestic abuse. Her month has been otherwise marked by advising on no fewer than four cases in which the property law implications of partially implemented financial remedy orders have been a feature, raising considerations including the meaning of ‘best endeavours’ obligations, the winding up of companies, and the order of priority between competing equities.
For Lina Mattsson May marked another lap around the sun. To celebrate, she donned her detective hat for some water ingress and easements advice — because nothing says “I’ve made it” like knowing exactly whose fault the damp is and who has the right to walk across someone garden. She also drank fizz and eat cake, of course.
Cameron Stocks started the month in what was due to be a 3-day trial in the High Court in Birmingham concerning push payment fraud and the payment of rent but which was dealt with summarily on day one. Upon returning from his jaunt to the Midlands, Cameron has been dealing with tenancy agreements tied to the life and death of the family dog and delving into the legislation surrounding allotments. He is not at all still bitter about having been in second place in the quiz until the dastardly cheese or football team was his undoing..
Mark O’Grady has had been in court twice in the last month against colleagues from Chambers. The first case was in the High Court against Steven Woolf, where Mark obtained interim injunctive relief pending the trial of the action, in relation to the erection of a pair of gates across an accessway in Suffolk. Unusually, costs were awarded to the successful applicants for the proceedings up to and including the return date. The second case was against Adam Smith-Roberts, concerning a 1954 Act renewal where the parties were arguing over a very small margin of difference concerning the headline rent figure, but where relevant offers were very likely to have significant cost consequences. Mark acted for the successful landlord – although there was a split costs decision.
Amongst other things, William Golightly has been in the High Court successfully arguing for permission to issue against “no named Defendant” under CPR 8.2A in a claim for vacation of an obsolete land charge in respect of an 1959 option to extend a (he argues) long-since expired lease.
Victoria Dacie-Lombardo has likewise enjoyed working with Brie and Charlotte this month. Elsewhere she succeeded at trial in a service charge claim and has had some interesting opinions to write, including one which concerned the effect and enforceability of an agency agreement made with an unincorporated association. She has just returned from UKREiiF where she enjoyed spending time in her beloved Yorkshire and catching up with lots of familiar faces. She was definitely ready for a long, sunny weekend!
David Lipson has had a busy month – he advised on a Party Wall etc Act 1996 dispute, advised on avenues for possession in light of the implementation of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, represented the landlord in an opposed 1954 Act lease renewal, and drafted written submissions for the Upper Tribunal on the proper construction of the service charge clause of residential leases.
Mark Erridge has been in the FTT acting for a freeholder seeking a determination of breach of lease and payability of service charges, advising and drafting in response to a tenant’s challenge to a section 13 rent increase and drafting defences to and advising on the quantum of tenants’ disrepair claims.
Imogen Gander successfully achieved a s.21 possession order following a dispute between the parties about whether the Claimant’s name had been consistently and correctly transliterated from Cypriot Greek into English across the various required documents. It turns out that a Classics degree can be helpful for a career at the Bar!
Landlord’s flat and Right to Manage – who gets the profit?
The decision in Churchill Retirement Living v Hampton Lodge RTM Company Limited
David Peachey was recently successful in an appeal to the Upper Tribunal dealing with whether or not income from a guest suite in a residential development should be credited to the service charge. The case was Churchill Retirement Living Limited v Hampton Lodge RTM Company Limited [2026] UKUT 164 (LC).
The appeal concerned Hampton Lodge, a block of 39 retirement flats of which the appellant is the freeholder. The flats are restricted to residents aged 55 and over. As is common in developments of this kind, the landlord provides a guest room which residents may book, on payment of a fee, for visiting family or friends to stay overnight.
The flat leases gave the leaseholders the right to use various common facilities “if provided”. That included use of the guest bedroom subject to the payment to the Landlord of the charges for such use which the Landlord may in its discretion from time to time impose.”
The central issue in the appeal was the charge imposed by the landlord when residents book that room. This became an issue when management of the development passed from the landlord, Churchill Retirement Living, to a right to manage company.
Article by David Peachey
What, FSMA in possession proceedings? Lessons from Dhillon v Orchard
When the law of property and financial services meet, which prevails? This question was at the heart of a recent Court of Appeal case. The essential background was as follows:
- Mr and Mrs Orchard (the successful defendants below) entered a sale and rent back agreement with Red 2 Black Properties Ltd (‘R2B’) in late 2010. This involved selling their home to R2B and taking an assured shorthold tenancy back from R2B. R2B was co-owned by Ms Dhillon and her then husband, Mr Chadda, but some time after the transaction was transferred to Ms Dhillon’s sole name as part of their divorce settlement.
- Entering this type of arrangement is a regulated activity under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001. Mr Chadda was authorised to carry out this activity under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA); R2B was not. Because it was R2B that actually entered the sale and rent back rather than Mr Chadda personally, R2B breached the “general prohibition” under s.19 FSMA.
- After the divorce, Ms Dhillon bought the property from R2B. The Orchards thereafter paid rent to her, and entered a new tenancy agreement. R2B was dissolved.
- Later on, the Orchards stopped paying rent. Ms Dhillon served notice seeking possession, followed by possession proceedings.
The Orchards defended the proceedings. Possession proceedings in respect of an AST is, one might think, an unlikely scenario for FSMA to be raised. But one of the Orchards’ defences challenged the sale and rent back under FSMA.
Article by Jack Dillon
Did you miss? Pridewell Properties (London) Ltd v Spirit Pub Company (Managed) Ltd
Pridewell Properties (London) Ltd v Spirit Pub Company (Managed) Ltd [2026] EWHC 953 (Ch) · Mr Justice Fancourt · 24 April 2026
Lina Mattsson, led by Mark Warwick KC, acted for the Appellant landlord, a single-purpose vehicle formed to redevelop The Railway Bell, a public house. Its scheme involved building three mews houses in the beer garden and converting the upper floors to flats. Planning permission had not yet been obtained as the landlord needed to carry out acoustic surveys and intrusive structural investigations before the application could be submitted to the Local Authority. The lease did not include any such access rights and the tenant refused access. Expert witnesses agreed that in the circumstances a realistic timeline to the start of construction was 10 to 14 months from the possession date.
HHJ Hellman sitting in the Mayor’s and City of London Court held (amongst other things) that this was a “reasonable time” and that the ground of opposition was therefore satisfied on the timing point, but held that ground (f) was not satisfied on the “narrow ground” that the landlord had not shown that it had a real prospect of obtaining funding for the development. The landlord appealed and the tenant put in a Respondent Notice which challenged, amongst other things, the judge’s finding on the timing point – an issue of wider legal significance.
Article by Lina Mattsson
Contact us
If you would like to discuss any of the topics in this newsletter, please contact the H Team at hteam@gatehouselaw.co.uk or get in touch with one of our Practice Managers.
Patrick Sarson, Senior Practice Manager
Jim Findley, Practice Manager
Samuel Read, Practice Manager
To find our 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 David Peachey. Comments or queries about this newsletter? Please get in touch with him!