Last updateTue, 24 Feb 2015 5pm

Property Law Journal: November 2014

Rachael Donnelly reviews a recent decision, and considers the parties’ specific obligations in relation to items at the premises at the end of a lease

The classification of an item as a chattel, fixture or part of the land itself can be significant in the context of landlord and tenant disputes, especially those relating to dilapidations. The status of an item will determine whether the tenant may (or is obliged to) remove an item from the premises during or at the end of the term of the lease. If a tenant fails to remove items from the premises or if they remove items that they are not entitled to, then they may find themselves in breach of the yield up or reinstatement provisions in the lease.

John Starr

John Starr considers a case where no costs sanctions were imposed despite an unreasonable refusal to mediate

In ‘Mediation retains its appeal’ PLJ295, September 2012, p12, I wrote about the continuing popularity of mediation with the Court of Appeal. I spoke about two then recent cases (Hameed Faidi v Elliott Corporation [2012] and Ali Ghaith v Indesit Company UK Ltd [2012]) where the Court of Appeal had pronounced at length on the virtues of mediation, and the importance of not refusing an offer to mediate. Reference was made in the judgments to the Court of Appeal Mediation Scheme and the then new pilot scheme under which mediation was made almost compulsory in certain types of claim.

Graham Reid explores how Scottish law deals with terminal dilapidations claims

At Scottish common law, the tenant of a property is generally only liable for fair wear and tear, and for repairs that are required if the tenant fails to take reasonable care.

Andrew Williams assesses the law where property is damaged as a result of something on neighbouring land

Given that last winter was the wettest since records began in 1910, it seems fair to suppose that there may be numerous claims still to be resolved arising out of flooding incidents. And we’ve yet to even see what this winter holds in store.

Serle Court

Andrew Francis deals with the more complex rules that lie behind the topics covered in the first two rights of light Q&As

Questions and answers: part 1

Questions and answers: part 2

Questions and answers: part 4

Questions and answers: part 5

Nabarro LLP

Edward Gamble reports on a decision that clarifies whether a squatter in illegal occupation of a residential building can still establish a claim for adverse possession

Section 144(1) of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 makes it a criminal offence to squat in a residential building. When s144(1) came into force on 1 September 2012, it generated considerable media interest and controversy. Many in the property industry in particular were pleased but there were critics who were concerned about the potential effect on the homeless or on the ability of the police to enforce the new law at a time of constrained budgets. Away from the headlines and the surrounding political issues, the introduction of s144(1) also raised the question of how this new law might affect the law on adverse possession.

Planning promotion agreements are becoming increasingly popular with both developers and landowners as an alternative to option agreements. In the first of two articles, Gavin Le Chat examines their workings

A planning promotion agreement is really a type of joint venture agreement. Typically a planning/land promotion agreement will be between a landowner and a developer, or between a landowner and a planning consultant. The developer or planning consultant will agree to promote the landowner’s property for development, to apply for and use reasonable endeavours to obtain planning permission and, having secured planning permission, to market the property for sale in the open market. In return for providing these services, the developer or planning consultant will receive a fee or a proportion of all the net sale proceeds received by the landowner after various costs, such as planning costs, have been deducted and reimbursed to the developer/promoter.


James Batham and Thomas Grant QC discuss the recent case of Tindall Cobham v Adda Hotels [2014] and give their views on the law regarding intra-group assignments

The Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 was introduced following the recession of the early 1990s and brought about a number of changes to the liability of tenants who have lawfully transferred their interest in a lease. The intention of the Act was to rectify the perceived inequality of a tenant remaining liable for tenant covenants under a lease that was lawfully disposed of, sometimes many years before.