Tanfield Talks

Piers Harrison and Ceri Edmonds discuss the landmark Supreme Court decision in A1 Properties v Tudor Studios RTM. This case resets the approach of courts to minor procedural errors when attempting to comply with the often complex requirements of property statutes.

1:11   The “old approach”- where there is a question of statutory interpretation, whether the statutory provision is mandatory or directory.

2:02  A change of approach following Soneji. Can Parliament have intended complete invalidity for non-compliance?

2:59   Natt v Osmond – Court of Appeal said property cases were a question of statutory construction so breach always had the same result irrespective.

3:51   Elim Court – the Court of Appeal said there had been a forgivable and immaterial mistake and the claim notice was still valid.

5:18   A1 Properties – explanation of the Supreme Court decision. It looked at the validity of the process following the absence of a notice ie whether there has been prejudice.

8:18  What is the status now of Natt v Osmond?

12:59 Discussion of different factual scenarios and how they are impacted by A1 Properties.

13:15  Scenario 1 – the notice gives insufficient time in the context of the 1993 Act.

14:47 Scenario 2 – late service of a counter-notice.

16:33 Scenario 3 – failure to attach a plan to a claim notice.

17:30 Scenario 4 – failure to set out the prices proposed in the initial notice.

18:47 Scenario 5 – failure to serve an intermediate landlord or third party.

21:12  Scenario 6 – late notice to a third party.

22:14  A1 Properties looked at right to manage not enfranchisement. This is important as there are far more variables in enfranchisement cases.

24:50 The principles established by A1 Properties.

Philip Rainey KC and Mark Loveday acted for the Association of Leasehold Enfranchisement Practitioners (ALEP) in A1 Properties. You can read more about the case here.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Edward Denehan and Lorenzo Leoni consider and discuss the Law Commissions’ Consultation Paper on the security of tenure provisions for business tenants conferred by Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (the "Act"), and the pros and cons of the alternative security of tenure models advanced by the Law Commission.

1:49  An overview of the current regulation of business tenancies.

4:03  Tenancies protected by section 23 of the Act.

5:21  Tenancies excluded from protection - section 43 of the Act.

5:39  Contracting out of the Act under section 38 of the Act and Regulatory Reform Business Tenancies (England & Wales) Order 2003.

8:49  There are 4 models considered by the Commission for security of tenure, ranging from minimum to maximum protection.

9:38  Model 1 - minimum security of tenure.

9:57  Model 2 - contracting in regime.

10:25 Model 3 - the current system - a contracting out regime.

10:40 Model 4 - return to original 1954 Act. Not possible to contract out of security for tenure.

11:14  Law Commission pros and cons for all the models.

20:29 What prompted the Law Commission to consult? What does the market want? Is change needed?

Case citations

• Landlord and Tenant Act 1954
• Law Commission’s Consultation Paper 1 Business Tenancies: the right to renew, models of security of tenure (Consultation Paper 266) dated 19 November 2024
• Regulatory Reform Business Tenancies (England & Wales) Order 2003
• Landlord & Tenant Act 1927
• Law of Property Act 1969
• Agricultural Holdings Act 1948

Producer: Peter Shevlin

A Pod60 production for Tanfield

https://pod60.com/

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of Tanfield Talks, Daniel Dovar and Will Beetson explore some of the more recent(ish) cases on landlord’s grounds of opposition under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. All cases referred to in this episode are cited below.

Additionally, Daniel Dovar’s book, Business Premises: Possession & Lease Renewal – 7th Edition, is shamelessly plugged in this episode and is available here. You may also wish to read Landlord and Tenant Review, which is a bi-monthly journal on all matters landlord and tenant to which Tanfield Chambers contributes, published by Sweet & Maxwell. 

For more information on our landlord and tenant work, please visit our expertise page on the website.

Cases mentioned

• Gill v Lees News Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 1178
• Betty’s Cafés Ltd v Phillips Furnishing Stores Ltd [1959] AC 20
• S Franses Ltd v The Cavendish Hotel (London) Ltd [2018] UKSC 62
• McDonald’s Restaurants Ltd v Shirayama Shokusan Company Ltd [2024] EWHC 1133 (Ch)

Producer: Peter Shevlin

A Pod60 production for Tanfield

https://pod60.com/

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Listen in as Adrian and Andrew provide some practical guidance on some of the problems everybody comes across with their everyday practice.  

There is more information regarding Tanfield’s expertise in private client law on our expertise page: 

https://tanfieldchambers.co.uk/area/private-client/

Producer: Peter Shevlin

A Pod60 production for Tanfield

https://pod60.com/

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Andrew Butler KC and Robert Bowker discuss some of the latest developments in the caselaw under the Building Safety Act, and what might be expected in this area 2025.

Listen in to hear their thoughts on the BSA in 2024 and their predictions for 2025.

All cases mentioned are listed below:

• Adriatic Land 5 Limited v The Long Leaseholders at Hippersley Point [2023] UKUT 271 (LC).
• Triathlon Homes LLP v Stratford Village Development Partnership, Get Living & East Village Management Ltd [2024] UKFTT 26 (PC)
• Princes Park Apartments LON/00AG/HIN/2024/0001 
• Lehner v Lant Street Management Company Limited [2024] UKUT 0135 (LC)
• Blomfield v Monier Road Limited (Smoke House & Curing House) LON/00BG/HYI/2023/0024

There is more useful information regarding the Building Safety Act on our Building Safety Hub.

Producer: Peter Shevlin

A Pod60 production for Tanfield

https://pod60.com/

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Annie Higgo, one of Tanfield's juniors, talks to Head of Pupillage, James Fieldsend about applying for pupillage and how she found life as a pupil at Tanfield.

Listen in to hear all their useful tips for making applications and how to make the most of your pupillage.

You can find more useful information on the Tanfield Pupillage pages.

• Introduction with James Fieldsend and Annie Higgo - 00:40 
• Pre-application 03:25
• Property Law 04:16
• Researching the right Chambers 06:58 
• Importance of Mini-Pupillages 11:20
• Application Process 17:28
• Mechanics of pupillage 33:20 (first six 35:40, second six 40:00)
• Life after pupillage 46:00

Producer: Peter Shevlin

A Pod60 production for Tanfield

https://pod60.com/

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.