A lessee who erects a building without the landlord’s consent does not commit waste, unless it can be shown that the building is an injury to the inheritance. ‘The erection of a building upon land is not waste’
Jessel MR
(1875) LR 20 Eq 539, 44 LJ Ch 658
England and Wales
Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.182999
Complaints were made by tenants in a block as to the behaviour of other tenants. A covenant in a lease granted in the early 1950s, restricted the user of premises to that of ‘grocers provisions wine spirit and beer merchants’. The premises had been used as a supermarket, and then underlet to a lessee (Mr Patel) who extended the business to include sale of newspapers and magazines, and later a video hire business.
Held: Hoffmann J:- ‘Construing the covenant requires one to ask whether Mr Patel can be said to be carrying on only the trade of grocer and provision merchant or some other composite trade, or differing trades in addition. This must be a matter of degree. For example, a grocer’s shop which sells a few electrical plugs and batteries might well be said to be a shop which is a grocer but happens conveniently to sell some electrical goods rather than a shop which carries on both grocery and electrical trades. On the other hand, if non-grocery products are sold in sufficient quantity they will constitute the carrying on of a separate trade, and even if a wide variety of non-grocery items are sold in quantities each of which would not in themselves amount to a separate trade, the cumulative effect may be to make it inappropriate to describe the premises as a grocery and provision merchant rather than a general store or some other composite description.’
On Mr Patel’s evidence, one out of four units in the shop was used for newspapers and other non-grocery goods, and they accounted for about half the turnover of the shop. ‘On that evidence I do not think that it is possible to say that the premises are being used only for the purposes of a grocery and provision merchant. One might say that, in addition, Mr Patel was, at the very least, also carrying on the business of a newsagent and a hirer of video films, or one might say that the business was that of a general store. I do not think it matters which, because in either case it goes further than the covenant allows.’
Hoffmann J
[1988] 2 EGLR 40
Cited – Williams, Williams v Kiley T/A CK Supermarkets Limited CA 21-Nov-2002
Tenants in a shopping precinct sought to enforce restrictive covenants directly against other tenants.
Held: The leases were in the same form, and covenants had been imposed to restrict the uses to avoid conflict. The scheme had the . .
Cited – Mount Cook Land Ltd v Joint London Holdings Ltd and Another CA 7-Oct-2005
The head lease contained a covenant against use of the premises as ‘victuallers’. The tenant sublet the premises for use as a sandwich shop. The tenant argued that the word ‘victuallers’ was to be construed only to prevent the use as ‘licensed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.182949
When assessing a new rent under the Act, the the value of the premises attributable to the obtaining of a license under the 1963 Act is to be disregarded.
[1995] 1 EGLR 239
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 34(1)(d), Betting Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963
Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.182553
The brewery sought possession of a public house, tied by type. The lessee claimed damages for breach of Art. 81 and a declaration that the Block Exemption was inapplicable to his lease. His appeal from the judge’s order in favour of the brewery was dismissed. The Court agreed with the majority in Greenalls. ‘There is no express requirement in [the Block Exemption] that the specification required must be by brand or denomination. Article 7 (1) (a) refers to beers supplied under the agreement as of a type; the tenant may be precluded from selling beers of that type supplied by other undertakings. Thus, the comparison between the agreement beers and those which he may not sell is by reference to the type of beer. The same comparison is apparent in Article 7 (1) (b), and there appears to be an assumption that the agreement will identify beers by type. Article 7 (2) defining drinks of the same type by reference to ‘their composition appearance and taste’, is consistent with the interpretation of Gibbs Mew. Article 8 (2) (b) requires the tenant to have the right to obtain from other undertakings non-beer drinks ‘of the same type’ as those supplied under the agreement but which bear different trademarks. ‘Type’ there cannot mean brand or denomination. The regulation, in short, does not point to the specification having to be by brand or denomination but is consistent with it having to be by type. The present case differs from Delimitis in that in the lease itself are specified the types of beer and other drinks. The landlord cannot unilaterally enlarge the scope of the tie beyond those types. The landlord can change the brands or denominations on the price list, but unless it has freedom to do that, no brand or denomination could be added to or removed from the price list without a variation of the lease itself, requiring the tenants consent. That consideration seems to me to add practical force to the considerations based on the language of [the Block Exemption] which persuaded the majority in the Greenalls case.’ Though the tenant had had the benefit of protection under the 1954 Act, by hus conduct he had surrenedered his tenancy and taken an unprotected tenancy at will.
Peter Gibson LJ, Mantell LJ, Schiemann LJ
[1998] EWCA Civ 1262, [1998] EuLR 588, [1999] 1 EGLR 43
England and Wales
Applied – Tinsley v Milligan HL 28-Jun-1993
Two women parties used funds generated by a joint business venture to buy a house in which they lived together. It was vested in the sole name of the plaintiff but on the understanding that they were joint beneficial owners. The purpose of the . .
Cited – Greenalls Management Limited v Canavan CA 30-Jul-1997
A lease of a pub contained a term by which the parties purported to agree that the Block Exemption applied. The claimants sought to enforce its beer tie which was by type. The lessee contended among other things that the tie was not within the . .
Cited – Crehan v Inntrepreneur Pub Company (CPC) CA 21-May-2004
The claimant had taken two leases, but had been made subject to beer ties with the defendant. He claimed damages for the losses, saying he had been forced to pay higher prices than those allowed to non-tied houses, and that the agreement was . .
Cited – Parks v Esso Petroleum Company Limited CA 23-Jul-1999
The claimant sought to add a claim under the regulations for compensation after termination of his agency for the defendants. The lower court had rejected his claim saying that the petrol products he sold were at a price fixed by Esso, and that . .
Cited – Patel v Mirza SC 20-Jul-2016
The claimant advanced funds to the respondent for him to invest in a bank of which the claimant had insider knowledge. In fact the defendant did not invest the funds, the knowledge was incorrect. The defendant however did not return the sums . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.144741
Mr Mills became the under tenant of the Radnor Tavern, 72, Chancery Lane, for a ten year term from 1861. The agreement between him and Mr. Austin, the holder of a long lease, contained an option to purchase the headlease. On 26th July 1867 Mr. Mills’ solicitors wrote as follows: ‘Mr. Mills is desirous of exercising his right to purchase the lease of the Radnor, and has instructed us to call upon you, as far as you are concerned, to complete the sale, which he is ready and willing to do. We have informed Mr. Gibbon and the National Bank of this, and if there be any other parties now representing you, be kind enough to hand them this letter.’ A draft assignment was prepared but the details were never finalised. Mr. Mills continued to pay sums by way of rent up to and after the ten year period of the option had expired. In November 1872 Mr. Austin was adjudicated bankrupt and Mr. Haywood was appointed trustee. He decided to sell the Radnor Tavern and offered it first to Mr Mills. Mr Mills took advice and pursuant to that advice claimed specific performance of the option that he claimed to have been exercised. Vice-Chancellor Hall made a decree for specific performance.
Held: The appeal succeeded. ‘If it were necessary to determine the point, there is considerable ground in the present case for holding that there had been a mutual abandonment of the contract, both sides treating the whole matter as at an end, and dealing with one another accordingly. But it is not necessary to give a decision on that point.
It is a well-established principle, as laid down by Lord Alvanley in Milward v Earl Thanet, that a party cannot call upon a Court of Equity for a specific performance unless he has shown himself ready, desirous, prompt and eager.
This rule is specially applicable where the subject-matter of the contract is of a somewhat speculative and fluctuating value, as the tavern, the subject of the present suit, must necessarily be; and the delay which has occurred in the present case from March, 1868, till May, 1873, unless satisfactorily explained, must be fatal to the plaintiff’s title to a decree for specific performance. It was contended that the delay was solely attributable to the disputes between Gibbon and Austin; but even if this were so, it was the duty of the Plaintiff, if he desired to obtain specific performance, to insist upon, and if necessary file a bill to enforce, specific performance of his contract. Then it is said that the Plaintiff has been in possession, and that a purchaser in possession does not lose by delay his right to specific performance. But possession, in order to obviate the consequence to a purchaser of delay, must be possession under the contract sought to be enforced, that is (to use the words of Lord St. Leonards in Clarke v Moore) ‘an enjoyment of the benefits given to him by the contract’, and the vendor must have known, or have been bound to know, that the purchaser claimed to be in possession under the contract. In such a case, as, eg where the purchaser in possession has no right or title to such possession except as purchaser, his possession is an assertion on his part of his right under the contract of purchase, and acquiescence in his possession is a recognition by the vendor of this right. But where a tenant in possession contracts for the purchase of his landlord’s interest the case is different. His right under the contract is to be no longer tenant of the vendor, and his possession as tenant is not an assertion of right under the contract of purchase. He may be in possession of the property, the house or land which is the subject of the contract of purchase, but, if he is, he is not in possession of, or asserting right to, the benefit or interest secured to him by the contract. …
In my opinion, the result is that the plaintiff did not, from March, 1868, till May, 1873, claim to be in possession as purchaser, and there is nothing to show that the vendors recognised or were bound to recognise his possession as being that of purchaser under the contract for sale. In my opinion, therefore, his possession was not such as to prevent the delay which has occurred being fatal to his claim for specific performance.’
Cotton LJ
(1877) 6 Ch 196
Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.180932
A landlord opposing the grant of a new tenancy on the basis that he wished to conduct his own business from the premises, need not show that everything is in place to conduct the new business, but must be able to show that most obstacles to starting the business have been dealt with. There is a twofold test. The landlord must show a genuine desire to operate a business from the premises, and also a reasonable prospect of doing so: ‘The question whether the landlords intend to occupy the premises is primarily one of fact, but the authorities establish that to prove such intention, the landlords must prove two things. First, a genuine bona fide intention on the part of the landlords that they intend to occupy the premises for their own purposes. . . Secondly, the landlords must prove that in point of possibility they have a reasonable prospect of being able to bring about this occupation by their own act of volition . . it is essentially an objective test, that is to say, would a reasonable man, on the evidence before him, believe that he had a reasonable prospect of being able to bring about his occupation by his own act of volition?’
Upjohn LJ explained the requirements as to the objective evidence required from the landlord: ‘It is an objective test upon the evidence before the court: have the landlords established, not what the planning authority or the Minister would determine, but the different and practical question: would the reasonable man think he had a reasonable prospect of giving effect to his intention to occupy? On the facts of this case . . this amounts to an inquiry whether the landlords on the evidence have established a reasonable prospect either that planning permission is not required or, if it is, that they would obtain it. This does not necessitate the determination by the court of any of the questions which may one day be submitted to the planning authority or to the Minister; it is the practical appraisal upon the evidence before the court as to whether the landlords, upon whom, let me stress, the onus lies, have established a reasonable prospect of success.’
Upjohn LJ, Diplock LJ, Denning MR
[1962] 3 All ER 907, [1963] 1 WLR 41
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 30(1)(g)
England and Wales
Cited – Cunliffe v Goodman CA 1950
Action for damages for breach of a repairing covenant on the expiry of a lease. The court looked at the intention required of a landlord to show an intended purpose to oppose renewal of a lease. Asquith LJ said: ‘An ‘intention’ to my mind connotes a . .
Cited – Zarvos v Pradhan and another CA 7-Mar-2003
The landlord had occupied the premises as a restaurant, but subsequently let it to the respondents. The landlord opposed renewal of the tenancy saying that it intended to recommence trading, and now appealed a finding in favour of the tenant.
Cited – Dolgellau Golf Club v Hett CA 3-Apr-1998
The landlord opposed the renewal of the tenancy saying that it wanted to run a golf club on the land. The tenant replied, saying that the businees had little prospect of success.
Held: Where the landlord had expressed intention to commence . .
Cited – Gatwick Parking Service Ltd v Sargent CA 3-Feb-2000
When a landlord opposed a renewal of a business tenancy, the court must allow for changes in planning policy which affected the parties. Planning permission had originally been subject to a condition that it be used not by the claimant but by a . .
Approved – Regina (Westminster City Council) v British Waterways Board HL 1985
The tenant occupied land next to a canal under a lease from the Defendants. The landlord opposed a renewal saying they wished to occupy the land themselves for the purposes of a marina. The tenant said the plan was unrealistic, because it would not . .
Cited – Humber Oil Terminals Trustee Ltd v Associated British Ports CA 10-May-2012
The tenant appealed against a finding that the landlord was entitled to resist renewal of its lease under the 1954 Act challenging the stated intention of the landlord to occupy the premises for its own business purposes. It said that the proposed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.180504
LRX/02/2001
England and Wales
Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.168693
Properties were let on 99 year leases with provision for upwards only rent reviews. The new rents were to be linked to ‘net bedroom rent’ (NBR) figures. The lease imposed an obligation on the tenant to attempt to secure the best rents for the rooms, and not to take the bedrooms out of service save for redecoration. A claim was brought, and as a preliminary issue the question was whether the provisions amounted to a covenant as to the use of the property.
Held: The provisions were merely an extension or qualification of the definition of the terms used to calculate the rent. The use of the word ‘shall’ did not necessarily impose an obligation, and no action for damages was possible.
Simon Berry QC
Gazette 29-Nov-2001
England and Wales
Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.166936
The court was asked whether an agreement was an assured shorthold tenancy agreement with the 1988 Act. The agreement incorrectly stated a date which would have terminated the secure tenancy after five not six months. There was also disagreement about whether a garage was included in the let. The landlord having died, his personal representative sought rectrification of the agreement.
Held: The judge had found an agreement. The inclusion of the garage was a matter of construction, and did not go to whether there was any agreement at all. There had been an agreement as to terms which was nor reflected in the document. The agreement prevailed, and rectification had properly been ordered. There was no failure to comply with any statutory requirements, only a failure to record the true agreement.
Simon Brown, Mummery LJJ
[1997] EWCA Civ 2145
England and Wales
Distinguished – Lancaster v de Trafford 1862
The plaintiff had offered to work mines under the defendant’s land, paying a fixed rent with a royalty. No formal agreement was concluded, but the plaintiff sought specific agreement.
Held: There was no sufficient agreement and the claim for . .
Cited – Lace v Chantler CA 1944
The freeholder purported to let the house to the tenant ‘for the duration of the war’
Held: The term was uncertain, and therefore no lease was created.
Lord Green MR said: ‘The intention was to create a tenancy and nothing else. The law . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.142542
The council granted what it called a licence to the applicant. He was one of their employee teachers, and they wanted to supply accomodation. They appealed refusal of possession on the basis that he had become a secure tenant under the Act. It had been intended that the accomodation should be shared.
Held: It was not possible to identify any property, whether the flat or a part of the flat, in respect of which both the conditions of essential living facilities and exclusive possession were satisfied. The tenant never had exclusive possession of an entire dwelling, but shared several elements with the rest of the house. The licence agreement made it clear that the right to occupy was a right to be shared with other persons also similarly authorised by the corporation.
[1997] EWCA Civ 2775, [1998] 1 EGLR 22
England and Wales
Cited – Westminster City Council v Clarke HL 29-Apr-1992
An occupant of a hostel for homeless and vulnerable single men had only a licence to occupy the room, and was not a tenant. There was a resident warden and a team of support workers. The intention was that residents should use the hostel as a . .
Cited – A G Securities v Vaughan; Antoniades v Villiers and Bridger HL 10-Nov-1988
In Antoniades, the two tenants occupied an attic, living together. Each had at the same time signed identical agreements purporting to create licences. The landlord had reserved to himself the right to occupy the property and to allow others to . .
Leave to appeal – Milton Parkins v Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Westminster CA 23-Jul-1997
Application for leave to appeal – possession order – whether letting to probationary teacher was an assured tenancy – leave granted. . .
Explained – Uratemp Ventures Limited v Collins HL 11-Oct-2001
Can a single room within a hotel comprise a separate dwelling within the 1988 Act and be subject to an assured tenancy?
Held: A single room can be a dwelling. Each case must be interpreted in its own light as a question of fact, but respecting . .
Full Appeal – Milton Parkins v Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Westminster CA 23-Jul-1997
Application for leave to appeal – possession order – whether letting to probationary teacher was an assured tenancy – leave granted. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.143174
Relief was given to a tenant in respect of an excessive distress levied by his Landlord.
Times 30-Mar-1993
England and Wales
Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.89530
A person claiming a tenancy by succession by virtue of their occupation of the property with a deceased tenant for a period of 12 months, did not need that 12 months to have immediately preceded the death.
Gazette 22-Jul-1992
England and Wales
Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.90275
A tenant of a lease for 14 months, having agreed to exclude his security, granted a sub-tenancy to a business from month to month. The sub-tenant claimed security, but was held only to have taken an assignment of the tenant’s rights and so was not secure.
Times 09-Apr-1999, Gazette 19-May-1999, Gazette 31-Mar-1999
Law of Property Act 1925 53(1)(a), Landlord and Tenant Act 1954
England and Wales
Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.84567
Section 252 of the Insolvency Act 1986 does not stop a Landlord executing distress though interim order in force.
Times 10-Jun-1993
England and Wales
Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.83577
LRA/46/2000
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.168724
Application for permission to appeal an order which dismissed the appellant’s applications for relief from sanctions and permission to amend her defence and counterclaim, refused her application for an adjournment of the trial and dismissed her application for summary judgment in respect of the claimant’s claim.
Mr Justice Trower
[2020] EWHC 3186 (Ch)
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.656323
Housing Act 2004 and Housing and Planning Act 2016 – Civil Financial Penalties
[2019] UKFTT RP – BIR – 47UG –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.648054
[2004] EWLVT 483
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.439284
[2004] EWLVT 495
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.439298
[2015] EWLVT LON – LV – SVC – 00BK – 0
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.548852
[2004] EWLVT 475
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.439270
The Covenant for quiet enjoyment is broken in the case of interference by the lessor, or those lawfully claiming under him, not only with the title to, or possession of land, but also with the lawful enjoyment of the premises for the purposes for which they were let. Therefore where a lessor has let the premises with a particular business, for example storing paper, he would be guilty of a breach of such a covenant if he or persons lawfully claiming under him were afterwards to do anything which would render the premises unfit for storing paper generally
Lindley LJ
(1889) 41 Ch 88, (1889) 58 LJ Ch 392, (1889) 61 LT 60, (1889) 37 WR 545
England and Wales
Cited – Lloyd v Symonds, Anderson and Lucas CA 20-Mar-1998
Appeal against injunction in nuisance to stop keeping breeding kennels. The neighbour had begun keeping the kennels, and the neighbour complained to the local Environmental Health office. Abatement notices were served, and the neighbour respondent . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.656226
Leasehold Disputes (Management) – Service Charges
[2019] UKFTT RP – CHI – 29UC –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.644591
Leasehold Enfranchisement – Procedure – Relief From Sanctions
[2019] UKUT 337 (LC)
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.646005
The claimants challenged as discriminatory the statutory requirement for landlords to verify the immigration status of potential tenants and land occupiers.
Held: The challenge succeeded.
Martin Spencer
[2019] EWHC 452 (Admin)
Human Rights Act 1998 4, Immigration Act 2014 20-37, European Convention on Human Rights 8 14, Equality Act 2010 149
England and Wales
Cited – Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza HL 21-Jun-2004
Same Sex Partner Entitled to tenancy Succession
The protected tenant had died. His same-sex partner sought a statutory inheritance of the tenancy.
Held: His appeal succeeded. The Fitzpatrick case referred to the position before the 1998 Act: ‘Discriminatory law undermines the rule of law . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.634219
Landlord and Tenant – Service Charges – application to which 399 leaseholders were named as respondents – 277 members of leaseholders’ association represented by one firm of solicitors – application under section 20C, Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in respect of part of proceedings in which leaseholders were substantially successful – relevance of suggested uncertainty over identity of leaseholders for whom solicitors acted – rule 14(4), Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 – appeal allowed
[2019] UKUT 68 (LC)
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.633851
Leasehold Enfranchisement – Procedure – Flat – Lease Including Right of Way On Foot Only To Demised Garage
[2019] UKUT 20 (LC)
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.633597
London : Section 27A and Section 20C
[2017] UKFTT RP – LON – 00AW –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.627546
[2014] UKFTT RP – LON – 00AP
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.629875
Northern : Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 – Section 20ZA
[2014] UKFTT RP – MAN – 00BW –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.629829
Leasehold enfranchisement – validity of notice
Fancourt J
[2018] WLR(D) 769, [2018] EWHC 3430 (Ch)
Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 13(1) 101(1)
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.631384
London : Section 20ZA
[2018] UKFTT RP – LON – 00AN –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623802
Northern : Leasehold Enfranchisement
[2015] UKFTT RP – MAN – 00BU –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.626520
[2018] UKFTT RP – LON – 00AT –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623796
[2018] UKFTT RP – LON – 00AW –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623806
[2018] UKFTT RP – CAM – 22UN –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623805
Southern : To Dispense With The Requirement To Consult Lessees About Major Works
[2018] UKFTT RP – CHI – 00HE –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623803
Section 27A Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Determination of reasonableness and payability of service charges
[2015] UKFTT RP – CAM – 26UG –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.626189
[2018] UKFTT RP – LON – 00AY –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623800
London : Appointment of A Manager
[2016] UKFTT RP – LON – 00AG –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.624813
[2018] UKFTT RP – CAM – 33UD –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623808
[2018] UKFTT RP – LON – 00AC –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623798
Section 20ZA
[2016] UKFTT RP – LON – 00AW –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.625320
[2018] UKFTT RP – LON – 00AW –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623795
London : Section 26 and Section 27
[2017] UKFTT RP – LON – 00AE –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.627527
[2013] UKFTT RP – MAN – 00BW –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623151
[2013] UKFTT RP – MAN – OOCY –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623156
[2013] UKFTT RP – LON – 00BC –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623143
[2013] UKFTT RP – LON – OOBH –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623136
[2013] UKFTT RP – LON – OOAX –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623135
[2013] UKFTT RP – LON – 00BJ –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623146
[2013] UKFTT RP – LON – 00AP –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623142
[2013] UKFTT RP – MAN – 00BU –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623155
[2018] UKFTT RP – LON – 00AZ –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623792
[2013] UKFTT RP – LON – OOAW –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623131
[2013] UKFTT RP – LON – 00AQ –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623147
[2013] UKFTT RP – BIR – OOGG –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623150
[2013] UKFTT RP – MAN – 00EW –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623153
[2013] UKFTT RP – MAN – 00BL –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623157
[2013] UKFTT RP – BIR – OOCN –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623149
[2018] UKFTT RP – LON – 00AG –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623793
[2013] UKFTT RP – MAN – 16UG –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623154
[2013] UKFTT RP – LON – OOBA –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623132
[2013] UKFTT RP – LON – OOBK –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623133
[2013] UKFTT RP – BIR – 41UK –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623148
[2013] UKFTT RP – LON – 00BE –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623083
[2013] UKFTT RP – LON – 00AT –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623130
[2013] UKFTT RP – LON – 00AE –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623125
[2013] UKFTT RP – LON – 00AB –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623101
[2013] UKFTT RP – LON – 00AH –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623105
[2013] UKFTT RP – LON – 00BD –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623107
[2013] UKFTT RP – LON – 00BE –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623097
[2013] UKFTT RP – LON – OOBF –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623129
[2013] UKFTT RP – LON – 00BK –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623100
[2013] UKFTT RP – LON – OOBA –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623114
[2013] UKFTT RP – LON – 00AE –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623081
[2013] UKFTT RP – LON – 00AP –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623084
[2013] UKFTT RP – LON – 00BH –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623104
[2013] UKFTT RP – LON – 00AJ –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623124
[2013] UKFTT RP – LON – 00BK –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623102
[2013] UKFTT RP – LON – 00AQ –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623128
[2013] UKFTT RP – LON – OOAG –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623085
[2013] UKFTT RP – LON – 00AN –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623082
[2013] UKFTT RP – LON – 00BH –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623098
[2013] UKFTT RP – LON – 00AN –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623106
[2013] UKFTT RP – LON – OOBK –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623076
[2013] UKFTT RP – CAM – 34UE –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623067
[2013] UKFTT RP – CHI – 00HP –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623058
[2013] UKFTT RP – CHI – 45UD –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623061
[2013] UKFTT RP – CAM – 12UE –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623068
[2013] UKFTT RP – CAM – OOKC –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623075
Adverse Possession
[2014] UKFTT 986 (PC)
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623064
[2013] UKFTT RP – CHI – 45UC –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623059
[2013] UKFTT RP – LON – 00 – A
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623079
[2013] UKFTT RP – LON – 00AG –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623065
[2013] UKFTT RP – CHI – 45UC –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623047
[2013] UKFTT RP – CHI – 00ML –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623044
[2013] UKFTT RP – CHI – 00HH –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623055
[2013] UKFTT RP – CAM – 22UL –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623072
[2013] UKFTT RP – CAM – 26UK –
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623069