EG Property Podcasts

On the Case: The Building Safety Act bites in Olympic Village dispute

Jess Harrold is joined by Rebecca Francis, associate director at Osborne Clarke, to discuss the most significant decision yet under the Building Safety Act 2022: Triathlon Homes LLP v Stratford Village Development Partnership and others, involving remediation of cladding that poses a fire safety risk at five residential blocks in the former Olympic Village in east London.

Francis talks through the various parties involved and the remediation contribution order applied for, and explains how the First-tier Tribunal made its decision on where the responsibility for footing the bill for remediation works should lie.

According to Francis, the decision really "shines a light" on the importance of the 2022 Act and its implications may come as a "bit of a shock" in particular for building owners and landlords that were not involved in the construction of a relevant building.

 

On the Case: Supreme Court clarifies charitable relief from business rates

The latest episode of On the Case focuses on the Supreme Court decision in Nuffield Health v Merton London Borough Council [2023] UKSC 18; [2023] PLSCS 94 – a dispute involving gym premises and charitable relief from non-domestic rates.

Jess Harrold is joined by Jessica Hopewell and Edward Gardner, both senior associates at Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner, to explain how the charitable relief works, and outline the dispute between the parties over the particular gym property.

Hopewell and Gardner sum up the Supreme Court analysis of this important area of law, and the significance of a decision that will be welcomed by charities.

On the Case: Rating premises with property guardians

Jess Harrold is joined by Roger Cohen, senior counsel at Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, to discuss the latest decision in Ludgate House Ltd v Ricketts (valuation officer) and London Borough of Southwark – a dispute over the impact of the use of property guardians on empty rates.

Having failed to convince the Court of Appeal in 2020 that the occupation of its premises by property guardians meant it was not liable for non-domestic rates, Ludgate House Ltd turned its attention to how the rates should be calculated.

Now, Cohen explains the Upper Tribunal's reasoning on that matter, and what it means for the rating of premises with property guardians.

In addition, he surveys the field of potential rates mitigation measures for empty properties in the wake of the decisions in Ludgate House.

On the Case: Service charge apportionment after Williams v Aviva

Jess Harrold is joined by barristers Simon Allison and Brooke Lyne, of Landmark Chambers,  to discuss the Supreme Court decision in Williams and others v Aviva Investors Ground Rent GP Ltd and another [2023] UKSC 6; [2023] PLSCS 29.

Allison and Lyne, who represented the successful respondents, explain the court's decision in a highly important case on landlords' discretion to apportion service charges.

In addition, they outline the significant implications of what they describe as a rare case that should be beneficial for both landlords and tenants.

On the Case: Views on Tate Modern and visual intrusion nuisance

Jess Harrold is joined by EG court reporter James Lumley, and partner James Souter and associate Sam Lear, both from Charles Russell Speechlys, for a detailed discussion of the Supreme Court's decision in Fearn and others v Board of Trustees of Tate Gallery [2023] UKSC 4; [2023] PLSCS 22.

Together, they address the court's landmark ruling in favour of the residents of Neo-Bankside that the visual intrusion from a viewing platform at the Tate Modern - from which tourists can stare straight into their flats - constitutes a nuisance.

Bearing in mind the extreme nature of the facts of the case, they address the implications of the decision and the potential development of the law of nuisance that may follow in its wake.

On the Case: Running up that Hillside

Jess Harrold is joined by Stuart Andrews, partner and head of planning at Eversheds Sutherland, to discuss the Supreme Court's decision in Hillside Parks Ltd v Snowdonia National Park Authority [2022] UKSC 30; [2022] PLSCS 177  – a case concerning the relationship between successive grants of planning permission for development on the same land.

Andrews outlines the facts of the case and how the Supreme Court decided it, before going on to address the significant implications for developers of multi-unit and multi-phase schemes.

In addition, he addresses the options available for developers looking to retain the ability to make changes to extensive schemes mid-delivery, in the wake of the Hillside decision.

On the Case: The Court of Appeal rules on pandemic rent defences

Jess Harrold is joined by Guy Fetherstonhaugh QC, of Falcon Chambers, to discuss the eagerly awaited Court of Appeal decision in the combined appeals in Bank of New York Mellon (International) Ltd v Cine-UK Ltd; London Trocadero (2015) LLP v Picturehouse Cinemas Ltd and others [2022] EWCA Civ 1021; [2022] PLSCS 125 - cases both arising out of rent arrears accrued during lockdown periods imposed as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Fetherstonhaugh outlines the parties involved in the appeals, including two connected cinema tenants, and how those tenants saw their defences to actions for unpaid rent rejected at first instance.

He explains how the arguments were presented in the Court of Appeal, and why it dismissed the tenants' appeals.

In addition, Fetherstonhaugh shares his thoughts on where this leaves any tenants who are yet to resolve pandemic rent arrears disputes with their landlords, and whether this might lead to a late rush to use the government's so far under-utilised arbitration scheme.

 

In on the Act: Mark Sefton considers the case for reform of the 1954 Act

In episode four of EG’s new monthly podcast series – In on the Act – Sarah Jackman catches up with Falcon Chambers barrister Mark Sefton QC to discuss the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.

A cornerstone of landlord and tenant practice for almost 70 years, the Act has attracted calls for reform, with the government announcing in 2020 its intention to review it.

Sefton explains the background to the Act, the practical difficulties in its operation and the effect of the S Franses Ltd v Cavendish Hotel (London) Ltd decision on ground (f): redevelopment.

On the Case: Supreme Court rules on Telecoms Code

In the latest episode of On the Case, Jess Harrold is joined by Martin Garner, partner at CMS, to discuss the first disputes under the Electronic Communications Code to reach the Supreme Court:  Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Ltd v Compton Beauchamp Estates Ltd and conjoined appeals [2022] UKSC 18; [2022] PLSCS 99.

Garner explains the operation of the Code, the issues that led to the three cases concerned here, and how the Supreme Court determined the appeal.

In addition, he addresses the implications of the decision for landowners and telecoms operators, and outstanding issues under the Code that will continue to occupy the higher courts.

On the Case: What Bath Rugby means for restrictive covenants

Jess Harrold is joined by Tom Weekes QC, of Landmark Chambers, and Caroline Preist, partner at Royds Withy King, to discuss the Court of Appeal decision in Bath Rugby Ltd v Greenwood and others [2021] EWCA Civ 1927; [2021] PLSCS 220 - a dispute over stadium redevelopment plans.

Weekes and Preist, who acted for the successful appellants, explain the restrictive covenant at the heart of the case, and what the courts had to say about a complex area of the law.

In addition, they set out the implications of the Court of Appeal decision, both for Bath Rugby's redevelopment and the wider field of restrictive covenants.