Author Archive for Francis Davey

Page 2 of 7

Remedying immoral use

By Francis Davey on 29/10/2010. 0 Comments

Patel v K&J Restaurants [2010] EWCA Civ 1211 deals with a number of interesting questions concerning relief from forfeiture. Although the lease in question (of a restaurant and residential flats) fell within the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, the case has wider implications for anyone dealing with relief from forfeiture, particularly where there has been immoral use of the premises.

Patel were the landlords and K&J the tenants. K&J were in breach of their lease in two ways. First a sub-tenant of one of the flats had been using the flat for prostitution — the type example of “immoral user” see Rugby School (Governors) v Tannahill [1935] 1 KB … Read the full post

Posted in Uncategorized. Tags: , , , , , .

Squatters make good stories

By Francis Davey on 20/10/2010. 0 Comments

A squatters story in the Evening Standard caught my eye today and I can’t bear to let such nonsense pass.

The story (so we are told) is that a hotelier moved out of his home for a week while it was being renovated and, coming back, found that it was occupied by squatters. He is now unable to access his own home and his possessions. The newspaper indignantly reports his misery and unhappiness — leading to many commenters on the online edition calling the law an ass or words to that effect.

First, it seems to me that the hotelier is a “displaced residential occupier”, who can certainly use force … Read the full post

Posted in Uncategorized. Tags: .

Tenants of defaulting mortgagees II

By Francis Davey on 30/09/2010. 3 Comments

Earlier this year J reported the passage of the Mortgage Repossessions (Protection of Tenants) Act 2010 which comes into force tomorrow (1st October), together with the Dwelling Houses (Execution of Possession Orders by Mortgagees) Regulations 2010 (No. 1809) and changes to CPR 55 and CCR O.26 as a result of the 53rd update to the civil procedure rules.

The new law gives some relief to an assured (whether or not shorthold) tenant (as well as to protected and statutory tenants under the Rent Act 1977) where a mortgage lender who is not bound by the tenancy brings proceedings for possession of the tenant’s home. The tenant has two, alternative, forms … Read the full post

Posted in Mortgage possession and Uncategorized. Tags: , , , .

New duty advice scheme at the London LVT

By Francis Davey on 09/09/2010. 2 Comments

Yesterday the Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE) announced in a press release that it would be operating a morning duty advice scheme at the London offices of the LVT from 21 September 2010. This news follows hot foot on the announcement that from 16 September 2010, LEASE’s phone advice line will open at 9:00am — half an hour earlier than the existing time of 9:30am — and will open late (until 8pm) on Mondays.

One hopes this is all because the money saved from withdrawing funding for advice on commonhold is being put to good use. On the whole a more positive story then, though advising on leasehold disputes as a … Read the full post

Posted in Leasehold and shared ownership and Uncategorized.

A broken engagement

By Francis Davey on 07/09/2010. 1 Comment

Dibble v Pfluger [2010] EWCA Civ 1005 concerns an appeal in a joint property case, largely decided on its facts. It has one interesting point of note for anyone who practices in this field: the couples were engaged to be married for much of the period of their relationship.

The claim was for an order for sale of a house (“Alinora”) in which the couple were living. As Lord Justice Ward put it “It cannot be easy for them.” That sale should have caused no difficulty as Alinora was held on an express trust with beneficial interests in common in equal shares. The defendant did not resist the sale in … Read the full post

Posted in Leasehold and shared ownership and Uncategorized. Tags: , , .

Unhappiness in the (e)state of Belgravia

By Francis Davey on 07/09/2010. 0 Comments

Donath v Trustees of the Second Duke of Westminster Will Trust [PDF] is a first instance decision of the LVT. We do not normally reports such things but it concerns an application to vary an old-style estate management scheme. So rarely does one see estate management schemes litigated in practice that I felt we ought to give it a mention.

Unlike most other civilised legal systems, English law does not have any simple mechanism for requiring the owners of land to contribute to the costs of managing or maintaining other land from which they benefit. There are archaic exceptions, such as the easement of fencing, and various legally imaginative solutions … Read the full post

Posted in Leasehold and shared ownership and Uncategorized.

Fee hike for appeals from the LVT

By Francis Davey on 01/09/2010. 1 Comment

The ministry of justice has just published its response [PDF] to its consultation on fees for the Lands Tribunal — now of course the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

This is bad news if you are an appellant. The fee for seeking permission to appeal from the Lands Tribunal (i.e. if it was not given by the LVT) goes up from £40 to £200; the fee for lodging the appeal from £50 to £250 and while the hearing fee remains at 2% of the amount determined by the tribunal, the minimum and maximum fees rise from £100-£5,000 to £250-£15,000.

The reason given for this huge rise is that the the tribunals … Read the full post

Posted in Leasehold and shared ownership and Uncategorized.
row of sheds footer image
7 pages