EG 15-02-20

Front page ad for CREWUK - a  commercial real-estate networking organisation for women US based now opening it seems in London - crew network
Hatton Garden’s legendary jewellery and diamond district faces extinction as jewellers can’t afford the rents landlords are seeking!
Tate Privacy overlooking- nuisance case - CA refuses to accept there is a right to privacy in the tort of nuisance!
Intu - the giant shopping centre landlord - will it go bust under a £4.7bn debt pile?

p.49 Warranty and Indemnity insurance - how to get the most out of your policy. W&I insurance is a staple of corporate acquisitions and disposals, and backs many deals. Looks at pricing, coverage, “loss”, terms, quantum of damages etc
p.51 Cladding - who pays? Insurance premiums in some cases have gone up from £20k to £200k pa on affected buildings.Looks at FTT  case where the tenants have challenged the increases (unsuccessful) and also the CA case of Manchikalapati v Zurich Insurance, where the insurer unsuccessfully sought to cap their maximum liability to get out of paying for the repairs! Also the Sethi v Islington Court Management FTT case where Premier Guarantee had disclaimed liability for construction defects (the failure of a 'green roof’). The landlord, a ground rent investor who had bought the freehold had to pay for it but defects in construction items had been excluded from the service charge which no-one had noticed on the purchase!
p.53. Brainy discussion by the Seitler barristers on whether Estate Agents are regulated too much. (LOL They should try being solicitors). No, its not an early April fool
p.54 Gosden v Halliwell Landau CA - the latter failed to register a restriction at LR protecting a estate protection scheme allowing the settlor owners to dispose of the property but still live in it till death. Settlor woman changed her mind, after entering into a civil partnership with a much younger woman (!) and sold property to an unconnected party without telling son. Son sued solicitors for failing to register, and it wasn’t statute barred as the 3 years of s.14A  Limitation Act ran from when the facts became known. Messy!
p.54 R (Sam Smiths) v North Yorkshire County Council SC reinstated the planning permission originally granted in 2013 which had been quashed by CA on grounds that it hadn’t complied with para 90 of NPPF requirements for a visual assessment of the effect of the proposed 6 hectare quarrying extension to an existing 25 ha in green belt. SC said this was a matter of planning judgement not law. Comment that ‘we need a way of limiting the ability of Nimbys to frustrate development like this - the original application was in 2009!
p.55 Bridging the gap between property and technology. Reports on a survey by Cripps Pemberton Greenish on what need s to be done to bring the two together better. 
p.56 Low Carbon future. The Heat Network Regulations consultation (which are district heating schemes reminiscent of communist Russian tower blocks?) is expected to start in Spring, which will have a significant effect on the Heat market. The Future Homes Standard will apply in 2025 expecting new homes to have 75-80% less carbon emissions. The article takes an overview of what this means, also consumer protection (and perhaps service charge recovery) issues. 
p. Rules of Evidence 101 - L&T Service Charges cases. Looks at 38/41 CHG Residents Co Ltd.v Hyslop UKUT. L had failed to serve the notice of demand for service charge properly. Many cases fail because notices aren’t served right under the document or the statutory requirements, such as s.196 LPA. In this putting it through the door in an envelope was challenged as not being enough proof evidentially of demand. On the facts of the case it was held it had been served but if in doubt ask a property litigator to serve them for you is my view
RSS Feed 

This site uses cookies. But unlike WhatsApp, Facebook and the rest we don't trawl your phone and PC for your personal data and sell it to advertisers!