Category: Landlord and Tenant

46-48 HWR RTM Limited Company Limited Eden House The Office Village Riverway Uckfield East Sussex TN22 1SL v Blue Property Investment (Uk) Limited (Midlands): FTTPC 9 Dec 2015

An Application under Chapter 1, Section 84(3) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 for a determination that on the relevant date, the Applicant was entitled to acquire the RTM the property.

Citations:

[2015] UKFTT RP – BIR – 00CN –

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.627061

Jones and Another v Roundlistic Ltd: CA 19 Oct 2018

The Court considered the application of the 1999 Regulations to the terms of a lease granted as an extension to an earlier lease under the 1993 Act.

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 2284

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Consumer

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.625959

Moore v Lightfoot, Lightfoot: FTTPC 6 Apr 2018

Application to register the burden of a restrictive covenant. Applicant had bought a house built on the site of a redundant factory and adjoining a brown field site. The developer had purchased the factory site from Respondent’s predecessor in title, who also owned the brown field site. Respondent’s predecessor had covenanted with the developer on the sale of the factory site not to use the brown field site otherwise than as a public open space. Respondent’s predecessor had also entered into a s. 106 Agreement to maintain the brown field site as public open space. After the development of the factory site was complete, the brown field site was sold to Respondent, who put up fences and prevented public access. The local authority was refusing to enforce the s. 106 Agreement. Respondent argued that it was not a mistake for the burden of the covenant not to have been registered. There has been a change in the terms of the Land Registration Rules as to protection of restrictive covenants since the covenant was entered into. HELD that there was a mistake on the register but Respondent was entitled to protection as a registered proprietor in possession. The register was not rectified.

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 319 (PC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.623662