EG. 12-09-2018-09-2020, 21:28
P44. Overcoming tenants’ rights of pre-emption. Good article on how to structure a flats development to make sure that you can keep the freehold or airspace and prevent them having a right of pre-emption should you wish to sell it. Basically exchange contracts to sell on the reversion before you sell 50% of the flats. But what about structuring it with an intermediate lease? Or before they are built. Good aide memoire. Commercial premises leases of say ground floor shop may be caught by the Act too!
P.47 useful guidance on making applications for variation of restrictive covenants, e.g an office to resi PD conversion where there are RCs on the title preventing such use. Reviews the current case law
P.48 The future of shopping centres - what lies in store for Intu’s tenants? Derogation from grant claims if a shopping centre closes? Breach of ‘quiet enjoyment’? What if an anchor tenant closes - would that be covered? Will leases change to turnover rents? What if administrators of a landlord cut the services provided at the centre?
P50 Article on the Planning court, which has proven to be a success story. Strict targets, specialist judges, quick ‘papers’ decisions within 6 weeks of filing (!),
P.51 Reviews R (ex p Liverpool Open & Green Spaces v Liverpool CC  EWCA Civ 861 sets out how decision makers should approach local policy and reminds us that important consultation responses from experts should always be passed on to members.
P.52 More telecoms code tribunal cases - there have been 6 since June alone. Goes through the decisions and the key points decided
P.53 Brothel use! A s.146 notice was served claiming breach of the ‘not to to do or permit immoral use etc” covenant. The long leaseholder sublet the flat and but it was used as a brothel. Where a long leaseholder is in breach, a s.146 cannot be served unless the tenant has either admitted the breach or it has been determined by the appropriate tribunal. L applied to the FTT for a determination that there had been a breach of covenant. By this time the brothel use had stopped as the sub-tenant had left. FTT decided that the circumstantial evidence was considerable, and that the long leaseholder had taken minimal steps to deal with the situation or get rid of the sub-tenant. On appeal the UT decided that there was sufficient evidence of breach, but that it was not sufficient to infer a ‘permitting’ of the breach from generalised statements and without specific findings of fact.