Sun08202017

Last updateTue, 24 Feb 2015 5pm

Property Law Journal: 3 December 2012
Forsters LLP

Elizabeth Small and Anthony Goodmaker discuss a recent ruling on whether TOGC rules can apply to the grant of a long lease

Tax professionals were very excited by the decision in Robinson Family Ltd v HMRC [2012] as this marked a fundamental shift in how the majority of us had considered that the transfer of a going concern (TOGC) rules had operated.

Cobbetts LLP

Two recent High Court decisions provide some clarification of occupiers’ liability. Kathryn Harris explains why landlords may want to carry out more regular inspections in future

There are a number of circumstances in which a landlord may, as the occupier of premises, owe a duty to another party in respect of personal injury to that party (or to their property). The duty may arise not only as a result of the landlord/tenant relationship, but also in other circumstances. For example, where a third party (say, a contractor working on the premises on behalf of the landlord) is injured as a result of a defect on the premises.

Marie-Louise Gobbi considers the content and effect of two recent Orders, and their implications for all those who own, occupy or develop land, as well as for the grocery retail business

Competition law is more generally considered in the context of price-fixing wars than in the arena of property law, but two important legal developments mean that competition is now a hot topic in the real estate industry.

Nabarro LLP

Simon Rose reviews the implications of recent attempts at SDLT avoidance

The recent cases reported below have all provided some much-needed clarity and certainty on a number of points. HMRC have shown that they are prepared to litigate to target SDLT avoidance. However, they have been forced to backtrack on their previous stance in respect of TOGC treatment in light of the court’s wider interpretation of when a TOGC can occur. The cases are addressed below.

Boyes Turner

The Court of Appeal has clarified that, if an adjudicator’s award is unenforceable, you may not have to pay their fee. John Starr investigates

It occasionally happens that an adjudicator’s decision is unenforceable, either because the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction or because the decision was reached in breach of natural justice. However, very little had been said by the courts until recently about the circumstances where an adjudicator’s fee has not been paid because of an unenforceable decision.

Jamie Hyams looks at whether the financial crisis has undermined the foundations of Opco/Propco structures or whether anything can be salvaged from the rubble

Before the current lending crisis it was not uncommon for companies with good real estate portfolios to look at alternative ways of leveraging their assets to raise finance. Often the trend was to move away from traditional methods of charging property in order to increase the level of borrowing available or improve the terms on offer. One popular method was to transfer the property ownership to one group company (Propco) and retain the operating business in another (Opco). By financing each separately a group could, in theory, raise more and/or cheaper debt.