Introduction
Hello everyone and welcome to the May edition of the Gatehouse Chambers Property Newsletter, now with me, David Peachey as its fully-fledged editor (I am no longer Laura’s understudy!). Thank you to Laura for all your hard work editing the newsletter, and for those poems!
We have a smashing trio of articles for you this month. Priya Gopal describes a fascinating case where the Upper Tribunal gave guidance on the test for re-writing (sorry – “varying”) leases that fail to make satisfactory provision, pursuant to s.35 LTA 1985. 56 Westbourne Terrace v Polturak is the case.
Meanwhile, Mark Erridge enables us all to breathe a collective sigh of relief on behalf of a law clinic and pro bono barrister who were cleared of negligence, in his article on Christie v Mary Ward Legal Centre. On the subject of pro bono, Gatehouse will be joining the London Legal Walk on 17 June in support of the London Legal Support Trust. We’re proud to be taking part alongside many others from across the legal profession.
And as always, legal-eyed Lina Mattsson has been on the lookout, reporting on the use of s.84 LPA 1925 to vary covenants in leases – a commonly overlooked capability of this section. Unfortunately for the applicant in Great Jackson Estates, the Court of Appeal upheld the Upper Tribunal’s refusal of a variation of the covenant. Find out why in this month’s Did you miss?
News
Laura Tweedy Awarded Menteeship
Laura Tweedy has been awarded a prestigious menteeship with the International Academy of Mediators, which is an internationally respected group of world class mediators: About IAM – International Academy of Mediators.
Legal Cheek Awards 2025
We’re also delighted to share that Gatehouse Chambers won ‘Best Chambers for Colleague Supportiveness’ at the Legal Cheek Awards 2025. Thank you to everyone who contributes to making Gatehouse such a collaborative and considerate place to work.
What have we been up to?
David Peachey has been in more than the usual number of mediations, and has been teaching himself, a judge (and his opponent – that went down well!) about how the intermediate track works in practice.
Oh, to be a contributor and not an editor, this is the life. Laura Tweedy has been loving all of the mediations in the last few months – boundaries, rent, 54 Act renewals and dilapidations to name a few. Sadly, not one of David’s though! She was also instructed as counsel specifically for a two-day class action leasehold mediation – interesting to be on both sides of the table in quick succession.
James Hall has been helping mortgagees get relief from forfeiture, advising on restrictive covenants and (together with Will Golightly) writing an article for the Journal of International Banking and Finance Law on the requirements of s1(2) LP(MP)A 1989 and the recent case of Macdonald v Bank of Scotland.
Brie has been enjoying an influx of new claims relating to development projects that are going or have gone wrong. She also had site visit 40 minutes beyond Welshpool and is off to UKREiiF for the first time this month.
Jamal Demachkie has been remembering something called ‘business development’ this month – two seminars (on boundary disputes and property-related prof neg), attending UKREiiF, and revelling in his team’s victory at the annual Gatehouse Property & Construction Quiz. He’s also done some work, but that was less exciting.
Philip Marriott enjoyed a week in the Scottish Highlands before coming back to a mountain (ba-dum, tss) of paperwork including a complicated s.21 possession claim, HMO licencing disputes, and sale of a property in Bermuda.
After enjoying some time off in Argentina and Chile, David Lipson has been advising in a TOLATA claim, successfully applying for summary judgment, advising on service against a tenant who is no longer resident in the jurisdiction, and drafting pleadings ranging from disrepair counterclaims to breaches of covenant under a commercial lease. It’s like he never left.
Carl Brewin has enjoyed some time away in South-East Asia but since back has been advising a landlord on opposing business tenancy renewal on development considering S Franses v Cavendish Hotel, and is preparing for the Upper Tribunal on a s.20C point.
Andrew Skelly has spent most of May in a TCC trial, all about damage to a client’s property caused by defective foundations. Happily, the additional claim between the builder and the foundations designer settled a couple of weeks before the trial, so that the number of experts involved reduced from 8 to 5. Andrew then moved on to a 4-day trial which has been reinstated only a few days before it is due to start, after being struck out for failure by the claimant to pay the trial fee. Andrew barely found time to revel in his team’s second place at the annual Gatehouse Property & Construction Quiz.
Cameron Stocks has had a month of cohabitation, arson and service charges. When not speaking on cohabitation reform in England and Wales, he has been advising on breach of duty following an arson attack and coincidentally a number of fire-safety related outings to the First-tier Tribunal for dispensation and arguments about what a “relevant landlord” is for the purposes of the BSA. June looks to be leasehold heavy with a trip to the Court of Appeal led by Brie Stevens-Hoare KC to argue about the meaning of repair/renew and a trip to the Upper Tribunal led by Emily Betts to argue about the recovery of legal costs in long leases.
Steven Woolf, has learnt a huge amount about the high-end bakery trade whilst being involved in a multi-million pound property / commercial dispute. Watching his diet has been easy whilst spending time at his desk in preparation for conferences and hearings, but his will-power is likely to be gravely tested when the site visits to a number of outlets is arranged for next month.
Daniel Gatty, like Jamal, very much enjoyed being on the winning team at the Gatehouse Property & Construction Quiz (the same team, to be clear, there has been no falling out over which team won). He also enjoyed spending most of a week on holiday in Rome. Back at the coalface, he has had an unusually injunction-heavy few weeks – one on behalf of a mortgage lender to prevent sale of property intended to be, but not, subject to a registered charge and another on behalf of a childcare business peremptorily excluded from its premises, while advising about a third to enforce a restrictive covenant.
John Clargo made his first trip to UKREiiF in Leeds this year. When not soaking up the sun on the Yorkshire riviera (no, really) he has been advising on some big forfeiture claims, and getting on with his usual diet of business renewal spats, easement bust ups, covenant rows and naughty property professionals (present readers excepted). His team at the Gatehouse Property & Construction Quiz was robbed: an inexplicable 3rd place.
Lina Mattsson spent her birthday week (the older you get the longer you need to celebrate) on West Wittering beach sunning herself whilst preparing for a s 60 appeal in the Upper Tribunal and advising on mortgage fraud and terminal dilapidations.
Events
LIDW
On 5 June 6 – 7.30pm Laura Tweedy is chairing a panel at LIDW on the role of evaluation in dispute resolution. The panel will be debating: If neutral evaluation proves so effective in financial remedy cases, why isn’t it more widely used across civil and commercial disputes? As well as considering the rise of evaluative techniques in mediation. Book here: LIDW 2025 – The role of evaluation in dispute resolution
Did you miss? Great Jackson ST Estates Ltd v Manchester City Council [2025] EWCA Civ 652
The Appellant, Great Jackson St Estates Limited, is the tenant of two redundant warehouses in Manchester. The Respondent, the Council of the City of Manchester, is the freehold owner and the relevant planning authority. At the date of the hearing before the Upper Tribunal, 61 years of that term remained unexpired.
Great Jackson obtained planning consent to demolish the warehouses and replace them with two 56-storey tower blocks containing 1037 flats. The Lease contains a number of restrictive covenants. Some of the relevant covenants prohibit development works on the site without the local authority’s consent. Some gave the local authority qualified control over the use and development of the site, by requiring that the applicant obtain its consent, which was not to be unreasonably withheld. Others imposed restrictions on the tenant’s general use and management of the site.
Article by Lina Mattsson.
To vary or not to vary, that is the question…
In 56 Westbourne Terrace RTM Company Limited v Polturak and Ors [2025] UKUT 88 (LC), the Upper Tribunal provided much needed guidance on the approach to be taken when determining applications for a lease variation under section 35, Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.
Article by Priya Gopal.
Anna Christie v Mary Ward Legal Centre & Anor [2025]
HHJ Tindal (sitting as a Judge of the High Court) dismissed a claim by a leaseholder based upon allegedly negligent advice given to her in connection with forfeiture proceedings in 2012–13. Her claim was advanced against the law clinic and barrister who represented her in those forfeiture proceedings.
The decision addresses a number of interesting points within the spheres of professional negligence and property, including a barrister’s duty to plead weak arguments, reliance on counsel by solicitors, causation of damage, limitation, and the valuation of a lost asset.
Peter Petts led David Lipson and Mark Erridge, acting for the Mary Ward Legal Centre, instructed by Eversheds LLP, all acting pro bono.
Article by Mark Erridge.
Contact us
If you would like to discuss any of the topics in this newsletter, please contact a member of our Practice Management Team:
Patrick Sarson, Senior Practice Manager
Jim Findley, Practice Manager
Adam Macdonald, 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 David Peachey. Comments or queries about this newsletter? Please get in touch with him!