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 [2019] EWCA Civ 1868; [2019] 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 [2019] UKSC 46;
[2019] 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 [2019] UKSC 47; [2019] 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 [2018] EWCA Civ 2298; [2018] 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 [2019] EWHC 2441 (Ch); [2019] 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.
Kathryn Hampton, senior knowledge lawyer at Hogan Lovells International LLP, explains the Supreme Court decision in Lambeth Council v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2019] UKSC 33; [2019] PLSCS 122.
The council won a Supreme Court fight to restrict the type of goods that can be sold from a Homebase store in Streatham, and Hampton dissects the decision - as well as considering what it means for similar cases going forward.
Roger Cohen, partner at Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner, returns to the EG studio, joining deputy legal & professional editor Jess Harrold to discuss the Supreme Court ruling in Hewitt (VO) v Telereal Trillium [2019] UKSC 23; [2019] PLSCS 90 - where a Blackpool office block that has been empty for a decade was found nevertheless to have a rateable value of £370,000.
Cohen explains the Supreme Court judgment and the importance of "general demand" when it comes to calculating rateable value - as well as considering the implications of the decision for property owners.
Two of the leading barristers in property law, Joanne Wicks QC and Jonathan Seitler QC (both of Wilberforce Chambers), discuss the recent high-profile case in which they went head-to-head - Canary Wharf (BP4) T1 Ltd v European Medicines Agency [2019] EWHC 335 Ch; [2019] PLSCS 37.
Earlier this year, the High Court ruled in favour of landlord Canary Wharf that Brexit will not "frustrate" the EMA's £13m-a-year lease of extensive premises at Canary Wharf, which runs until 2039 with no break clause.
With permission granted for a possible appeal by the EMA, Wicks (who acted for Canary Wharf) and Seitler (who represented the EMA) discuss the issues raised by the case, the arguments advanced by themselves and their teams, and the details of the judge's decision.
In addition, they share their contrasting thoughts on the industry reaction to the dispute, and its possible implications for property.
Roger Cohen, real estate disputes partner at Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, analyses the Court of Appeal decision in Rossendale Borough Council v Hurstwood Properties (A) Ltd; Wigan Council v Property Alliance Group Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 364; [2019] PLSCS 49 - and reveals why he sees it as a "lifeline" for property owners in the controversial area of empty property business rates.
Cohen summarises the court's findings and explains what the decision means for property owners seeking to employ rates mitigation schemes in future.
Last week, High Court judge Mr Justice Mann ruled in a high-profile dispute over the Tate Modern’s viewing gallery, which offers panoramic views of London - as well as into the flats of residents at neighbouring Neo Bankside.
Megan Davies, an associate at Charles Russell Speechlys LLP, explains why the judge dismissed the residents' claims over invasion of their privacy, outlines what the decision means for the law of nuisance, and considers the prospects for further claims in this area.
