EG's deputy legal & professional editor Jess Harrold is joined by John Webber, head of rating at Colliers International, and Catherine Dear, an associate at Irwin Mitchell, to discuss the eagerly-awaited Supreme Court ruling in Cardtronics Europe Ltd and others v Sykes (VO) and others  UKSC 21;  PLSCS 95 - finally providing a definitive answer to the question whether ATMs in supermarkets and convenience stores should be rated separately.
Webber and Dear discuss the long history of the case, how the Supreme Court approached the matter, the huge number of sites potentially affected - and the massive sums riding on the outcome.
Joanne Wicks QC and Emer Murphy of Wilberforce Chambers discuss the significance of the Supreme Court judgment in Duval v 11-13 Randolph Crescent Ltd with EG's deputy legal and professional editor, Jess Harrold.
Wicks and Murphy, who represented the appellant landlord in the case, discuss the court's reasoning, the wider application of the ruling and the issues it will raise for landlords and tenants of blocks of flats. In addition, they address how practitioners may adapt their lease drafting moving forward.
Kerry Glanville, partner at Cripps Pemberton Greenish, analyses the recent Court of Appeal decision in LM Homes v Queen Court Freehold Company  EWCA Civ 371;  PLSCS 41 - a case which raised the question whether airspace above and subsoil below a building falls within "common parts" for the purposes of the enfranchisement legislation in the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.
Glanville explains the court's decision and why she believes it is a significant case.
Barrister Andrew Francis, of Serle Court Chambers, the co-author of Rights of Light: The Modern Law discusses the High Court's decision in Beaumont Business Centres Ltd v Florala Properties Ltd  EWHC 550 (Ch);  PLSCS 45 - a very significant judgment for the field.
Francis addresses the nature of the dispute, what the judge decided and the implications for landowners and developers - as well as how practitioners should best advise clients, post-Beaumont v Florala.
James Souter and Megan Davies, of Charles Russell Speechlys, join EG's Jess Harrold to discuss the Court of Appeal's decision in the high-profile case Fearn and others v Board of Trustees of Tate Gallery  EWCA Civ 104;  PLSCS 22 - which effectively closes the door on nuisance claims for overlooking.
Souter and Davies take the positions of the Neo Bankside residents and the Tate Modern respectively, addressing the key arguments before the Court of Appeal, explaining the court's findings, and debating whether the correct decision was reached.
In addition, they discuss the potential for the case to go to the Supreme Court.
Karen Cooksley, head of the planning department at Winckworth Sherwood, joins EG's Jess Harrold in the Studio to discuss the recent Court of Appeal ruling in Finney v Welsh Ministers and others  EWCA Civ 1868;  PLSCS 211.
The effect of the court's decision is that it is no longer lawful for local planning authorities to use powers under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to amend the description of development on a planning permission.
Cooksley explains how section 73 was one of the major areas of flexibility in the planning system, frequently used to amend conditions attached to permissions after they had been granted - and why this decision in a case involving wind turbines will have major ramifications for housing developers and local authorities.
Matthew Bonye, head of real estate dispute resolution and Alice Dockar, partner in the transactional real estate team, both at Herbert Smith Freehills LLP, join EG's Jess Harrold in the studio to discuss the implications of the recent Supreme Court decision in Vauxhall Motors Ltd (formerly General Motors UK Ltd) v Manchester Ship Canal Co  UKSC 46;
 EGLR 51.
Bonye and Dockar address the law of forfeiture, how relief from forfeiture works and how the court's decision to allow relief in relation to a licence means the text books will have to be rewritten. In addition, they employ a case study to explain how the ruling might apply in a more conventional development scenario - as well as exploring potential other situations.
Jess Harrold joins Anna Favre, partner at Cripps Pemberton Greenish, to discuss the Supreme Court ruling in Sequent Nominees Ltd (formerly Rotrust Nominees Ltd) v Hautford Ltd  UKSC 47;  PLSCS 205 - in which the court ruled that a landlord's refusal of consent for its tenant to submit planning application for residential use was "reasonable".
Favre outlines the background of the case, analyses the court's decision - and explains why she found it so surprising. In addition, she addresses the potential significance of the case for landlords and tenants in the future.
Ahead of the Supreme Court hearing of the appeal in Duval v 11-13 Randolph Crescent Ltd  EWCA Civ 2298;  PLSCS 177 on 10 October, Laura Bushaway - a knowledge development lawyer at Charles Russell Speechlys LLP - explains the significance of the case to landlord and tenant law.
Duval raises the question: Is a landlord of a block of flats entitled, without breach of covenant, to grant a licence to a lessee to carry out work which would breach an absolute covenant contained in a lease of her flat, where the leases of other flats on similar terms require the landlord to enforce covenants at the request of a lessee of one of those other flats?
Bushaway addresses the arguments involved, how the lower courts have handled the case before now, and the impact the Court of Appeal's judgment will have if ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court.
EG's deputy legal editor, Jess Harrold, joins Julie Gattegno, partner at CMS, to discuss the High Court challenge to the Debenhams CVA in Discovery (Northampton) Ltd and others v Debenhams Retail Ltd and others  EWHC 2441 (Ch);  PLSCS 186.
Gattegno offers detailed analysis of each of the five grounds pursued by the landlords in the case, and how the judge dealt with each.
She explains how much clarity the decision has brought to the law in the current high street climate, addresses what ground remains for other landlords to challenge retail CVAs - and considers whether more needs to be done to strike a fair balance between the competing interests of struggling retailers and their landlords.