Commercial tenants who assign their leases may feel that they have washed their hands of the matter and are at little risk of further rent or other liabilities. In the context of the financial distress arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, however, a High Court ruling has shown that such confidence may be misplaced.
It is increasingly commonplace for owners of vacant commercial buildings to permit their occupation by so-called ‘property guardians’ with a view to protecting them from squatters and vandals. As an Upper Tribunal (UT) ruling showed, however, such arrangements can be fraught with legal difficulty.
Residential landlords sadly often focus on collecting rent and take a laissez-faire attitude to the condition of their properties. However, as a Court of Appeal ruling underlined, they take a huge financial risk in doing so.
Most people are aware that companies have legal identities separate from the individuals who control them. The application of that basic principle can, however, be problematic and certainly posed a difficult conundrum in a case concerning an agricultural tenancy.
The difference between a binding contract and an agreement in principle, subject to further negotiation, could hardly be more important. However, as was shown by a High Court case concerning the proposed construction of an anaerobic digestion plant, it is a distinction that can be far from easy to make.
Your neighbours owe you a duty of care and, if they cause a nuisance that results in you suffering financial loss, you are entitled to compensation in full. The point was made by the case of a landowner whose development hopes were stymied by flooding arising from a collapsed drain on a neighbouring railway line.
When deciding whether someone has a beneficial interest in a property, financial contributions to the purchase price, mortgage or other costs are often important. However, as the Court of Appeal made plain in a guideline case, non-monetary contributions to establishing a house and home can also count.
Restrictive covenants that forbid property owners from causing annoyance, nuisance or disturbance to their neighbours commonly appear in title deeds – but how are they to be interpreted? In the context of a dispute between residents of a housing estate, the High Court gave authoritative guidance on that issue.
Registration of a property as an asset of community value (ACV) can be a serious, even fatal, stumbling block in the path of would-be developers.
A couple bought a field with the aim of constructing an equestrian training facility on it. Less than a year after purchasing the field, the couple obtained planning permission to construct on it an unroofed arena that would enable the training of horses in a safe, all-weather environment.