EG 17-08-1920-08-2019, 12:36
p.21 & 25/26 Interesting Editors comments on the long awaited IPO for WeWork, including a lot of WTFing (quote!). I think WeWork’s approach is transformational in office provision and both landlords and tenants need to rethink the way they do business in the modern world, which includes us lawyers. WeWork may be losing billions ($1.9bn!) and full of hype (like Tesla), but change is a coming…(or - the biggest CVA in history). How would you advise a landlord taking them as a tenant?
P.27 And on the next page - retail vacancy rate has hit a 4 year peak at 10%! p.38 investments in real estate across Europe plummeting (London 33 % down)
P.49 Considers the new DCLG consultation paper “A new deal for Renting - resetting the balance of rights and responsibilities between landlords and tenants’ on proposed reforms to the residential leasehold system - removal of ASTs, and grounds for possession
P.51 A round up of all the law reform projects currently running relating to property. Some of them, however, have been moribund for years - such as the much needed easements/rights of light recommendations for reform 5 & 8 years ago!
P.52 Mines and minerals. The three options available to developers of land subject to 3rd party mines and minerals rights. Minerals titles do not show on the title to the land above - only a SIM search will reveal them. Buy them out, insure, or ignore -putting your head in the sand (or minerals).
P.54 More telecoms case law - Hutchinson 3G UK v Meyrick  - how to correctly remove a mobile phone mast from your land. The upper tribunal is indicating that the same principles Will apply on repossession claims as do security of tenure claims under the 1954 Act..
P.55 looks at the first case post Frances on intention, the court considered that the landlord could prove intention despite the tenant arguing that it would obtain an injunction to prevent the works, which works would considerably prejudice the residential tenants quiet enjoyment of their properties.
P.55 Pezarro v Bourne  held proprietary estoppel did not end a right of way. The original owner of the land with the benefit had informally agreed to remove the right-of-way from their register but the servient owner did not document this. The dominant land was then sold to a new landowner, who was not aware of this understanding, and was only aware that the right of way shown on their title over the servient had been obstructed by a fence (which they then asked to be removed, presumably). Result - the right of way was still there and prevented development of the servient land.