As their coastal road trip continues, Richard and Lizzie turn their attention to village greens.

Despite the name, a village green does not need to be in a village, nor does it need to be green. Quarries, industrial land, playing fields and even beaches have all been the subject of village green claims.

In this episode of ‘When Land Meets the Sea’, Richard explores the West Beach in Newhaven and the Supreme Court decision in R (Newhaven Port & Properties Ltd) v East Sussex County Council [2015].

The case raised a fundamental question: can land used by local people for recreation become a village green, even when it forms part of a working commercial port?

Richard and Lizzie discuss:

• What qualifies as a town or village green under English law
 • Why a beach can potentially become a village green
 • The legal test of public use "as of right"
 • The difference between using land by permission and using it as a legal right
 • How local recreational use can create powerful rights over land
 • Why the Supreme Court ruled that Newhaven's West Beach could not be registered as a village green
 • The concept of "statutory incompatibility" and its impact on ports, infrastructure and public bodies
 • What the decision means for coastal landowners, harbour authorities, developers and local communities

The Newhaven case highlights the often delicate balance between public access, community interests and the operational needs of critical coastal infrastructure. 

Whether you are involved in coastal development, public sector property, ports, regeneration projects or simply enjoy exploring Britain's beaches, this episode offers a fascinating insight into the hidden legal rights that can exist beneath our feet.

‘When Land Meets the Sea’ is a podcast series exploring the legal, commercial and environmental issues shaping the future of Britain's coastal communities.

Relevant cases: 

TW Logistics v Essex County Council [2018] 

Get in touch!

Training & Free Webinars for Property Professionals:

Would you like to keep up to date with the latest in real estate law? Davitt Jones Bould offers legal training tailored to your organisation’s needs, delivered in person across the UK or remotely. We also run free monthly webinars through for surveyors, solicitors, and property professionals across sectors. To sign up or learn more, visit our events page here or email [email protected] for information and booking. 

This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not intended to provide legal or professional advice. No liability is accepted by Davitt Jones Bould for any reliance placed on its content.

Get in touch!

Who owns the land between high and low tide? Can the Crown claim ownership of coastal land through adverse possession? What rights do the public really have to use beaches?

In this episode of the our miniseries ‘When Land Meets The Sea’, hosts Richard and Lizzie explore ownership of the foreshore and coastal land in England and Wales.

Drawing on cases including Blundell v Catterall (1821), Mark Andrew Roberts v Crown Estate Commissioners (2008) and Mark Andrew Robert v Swangrove Estates Ltd & Ors (2007), Richard examine’s the centuries-old legal principles that continue to shape our coastline today.

They discuss:

• Why the public does not automatically have a legal right to use the foreshore
 • How the Crown Estate came to own most of the foreshore around England and Wales
 • Whether the Crown can acquire land through adverse possession (squatter's rights)
 • The legal battle over ownership of the Severn Estuary foreshore
 • The significance of dredging, licensing and coastal management activities in establishing ownership rights
 • The continuing impact of adverse possession principles following JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham

When Land Meets The Sea is a podcast series exploring the legal, commercial and environmental issues shaping the future of Britain's coastal communities.

Get in touch!

Training & Free Webinars for Property Professionals:

Would you like to keep up to date with the latest in real estate law? Davitt Jones Bould offers legal training tailored to your organisation’s needs, delivered in person across the UK or remotely. We also run free monthly webinars through for surveyors, solicitors, and property professionals across sectors. To sign up or learn more, visit our events page here or email [email protected] for information and booking. 

This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not intended to provide legal or professional advice. No liability is accepted by Davitt Jones Bould for any reliance placed on its content.

Get in touch!

In this episode of Unpacking the Case, we examine the Upper Tribunal's decision in Notting Hill Home Ownership Ltd v Samoail and Others [2026] UKUT 235 (LC), a significant ruling for landlords, housing associations and shared ownership providers.

The Tribunal confirmed that shared ownership leaseholders cannot be required to pay service charges for parts of an estate that fall outside the scope of their sub-lease and which they are unable to access. The decision dismissed appeals brought by Notting Hill Genesis and followed disputes involving substantial service charge demands, with some residents facing bills of more than £6,000 to contribute towards maintenance.

We explore why the wording of leases remains crucial, and the wider implications for service charge recovery, estate management and shared ownership developments across England and Wales.

Whether you advise landlords, manage residential developments or work in the affordable housing sector, this episode highlights an important reminder that service charge obligations must be rooted firmly in the rights and responsibilities set out in the lease.

Relevant Cases:

Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd [2009]

Get in touch!

Training & Free Webinars for Property Professionals:

Would you like to keep up to date with the latest in real estate law? Davitt Jones Bould offers legal training tailored to your organisation’s needs, delivered in person across the UK or remotely. We also run free monthly webinars through for surveyors, solicitors, and property professionals across sectors. To sign up or learn more, visit our events page here or email [email protected] for information and booking. 

This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not intended to provide legal or professional advice. No liability is accepted by Davitt Jones Bould for any reliance placed on its content.

Get in touch!

In this episode of Unpacking the Case, our head of legal training Richard Snape examines the decision in EE Limited and Hutchison 3G UK Limited v AP Wireless II (UK) Limited, regarding the Electronic Communications Code, the Digital Economy Act 2017 and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.

At the heart of the dispute is the question: when telecoms operators occupy land under an agreement, are they tenants with leasehold rights, or merely licensees?

Richard explores how the courts are approaching telecoms agreements following the reforms introduced by the Digital Economy Act.

The discussion considers the consequences for landowners, telecoms operators, investors and property professionals involved in telecoms infrastructure and development sites.

Relevant Cases:

Pretoria Energy Company v Blankney Estates [2022]

Newham LBC v Thomas-Van Staden [2008] 

Brilliant v Michaels [1945]

Swift v MacBean [1942]

Get in touch!

Training & Free Webinars for Property Professionals:

Would you like to keep up to date with the latest in real estate law? Davitt Jones Bould offers legal training tailored to your organisation’s needs, delivered in person across the UK or remotely. We also run free monthly webinars through for surveyors, solicitors, and property professionals across sectors. To sign up or learn more, visit our events page here or email [email protected] for information and booking. 

This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not intended to provide legal or professional advice. No liability is accepted by Davitt Jones Bould for any reliance placed on its content.

Get in touch!

Following our recent webinar giving an update on the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 and the proposed ban on upwards-only rent reviews (UORR), property professionals sent in questions about what these changes could mean.

In this special Q&A episode, our Head of Legal Training Richard Snape tackles audience questions covering lease renewals, security of tenure, break clauses, section 25 notices, rent review mechanisms, reversionary leases, index-linked reviews, turnover rents and the potential impact of the proposed UORR reforms.

Richard also explores some of the hottest topics in the commercial property market right now, including when the ban may take effect, whether existing arrangements could be affected, how future lease drafting might change and what landlords and tenants should be thinking about as the legislation develops.

Whether you're a landlord, tenant, property developer, investor, surveyor or real estate lawyer, this episode provides insights into one of the most significant proposed changes to commercial leasing in recent years.

Topics covered include:

• Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 renewals
• Security of tenure
• Section 25 notices
• Break clauses
• Upwards-only rent review reform
• Rent review clauses
• CPI and RPI reviews
• Turnover rents
• Reversionary leases

Get in touch!

Training & Free Webinars for Property Professionals:

Would you like to keep up to date with the latest in real estate law? Davitt Jones Bould offers legal training tailored to your organisation’s needs, delivered in person across the UK or remotely. We also run free monthly webinars through for surveyors, solicitors, and property professionals across sectors. To sign up or learn more, visit our events page here or email [email protected] for information and booking. 

This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not intended to provide legal or professional advice. No liability is accepted by Davitt Jones Bould for any reliance placed on its content.

Get in touch!

Following one of our most popular property law webinars, we're back with a special Q&A episode tackling your adverse possession questions.

Can mowing land for years prove possession? What's the difference between encroachment and adverse possession? Can someone really acquire land that doesn't belong to them?

In this episode of Unpacking the Case, our Head of Legal Training, Richard Snape, answers real questions submitted by property professionals from across the sector. Covering everything from evidence and Land Registry applications to boundary disputes, highways, common land and landlord and tenant scenarios.

Whether you're a surveyor, developer, asset manager, property lawyer or landowner, this episode will help you navigate one of the most misunderstood areas of property law. 

Topics covered include:

• Proving adverse possession
• Boundary disputes
• Registered and unregistered land
• Land Registry applications
• Rights of way and public land
• Landlord and tenant issues
• Defeating adverse possession claims
• Practical evidence and strategy

 Relevant cases:

 Dobson v Unsted (2026)

Hood v Southern Land Securities Ltd & Anor [2025]

Relins v Gill [2025]

Clapham v Narga [2024]

Dwyer v The City of Westminster (2014)

Benn v Harding (1993)

George Wimpey & Co. Ltd. v. Sohn [1967]

JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham [2003]

Thorpe v Frank [2019]

Kirkman v Bradshaw Pub Company Ltd [2025]

Get in touch!

Training & Free Webinars for Property Professionals:

Would you like to keep up to date with the latest in real estate law? Davitt Jones Bould offers legal training tailored to your organisation’s needs, delivered in person across the UK or remotely. We also run free monthly webinars through for surveyors, solicitors, and property professionals across sectors. To sign up or learn more, visit our events page here or email [email protected] for information and booking. 

This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not intended to provide legal or professional advice. No liability is accepted by Davitt Jones Bould for any reliance placed on its content.

Get in touch!

Can a commercial lease come to an end because an unexpected event has destroyed its purpose?

In this episode of Unpacking the Case, Richard and Lizzie examine Into Nominee 1 Ltd v Study Group UK Ltd, a recent High Court decision that visits the contractual principle of frustration.

The case is the latest in a long line of attempts by tenants to argue that a lease has been frustrated by events outside their control. This time, the dispute arose against the backdrop of post-Grenfell fire safety concerns, with the tenant arguing that the common purpose of the lease had been undermined.

Richard explains why frustration rarely succeeds in the context of leases.

Whether you're a commercial property lawyer, surveyor, landlord or tenant, this episode explores why frustration remains one of the hardest to establish arguments in real estate law.

Relevant cases: 

Taylor v Caldwell (1863)

Cricklewood Property and Investment Trust Ltd v Leighton's Investment Trust Ltd (1945)

National Carriers Ltd v Panalpina (Northern) Ltd [1981]

Canary Wharf v European Medicines Agency [2019]

Bank of New York Mellon (International) Ltd v Cine-UK Ltd [2022]

Krell v Henry [1903]

Get in touch!

Training & Free Webinars for Property Professionals:

Would you like to keep up to date with the latest in real estate law? Davitt Jones Bould offers legal training tailored to your organisation’s needs, delivered in person across the UK or remotely. We also run free monthly webinars through for surveyors, solicitors, and property professionals across sectors. To sign up or learn more, visit our events page here or email [email protected] for information and booking. 

This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not intended to provide legal or professional advice. No liability is accepted by Davitt Jones Bould for any reliance placed on its content.

Get in touch!

In this episode of Unpacking the Case, Richard and Lizzie discuss Essendi Hotels UK 2 Limited v London Property Group, a High Court decision examining responsibility for unsafe cladding in a commercial lease.

The case concerns a budget hotel near Wembley that was forced to shut its doors after combustible cladding, similar to that involved in the Grenfell Tower tragedy, created serious fire safety concerns. With the Building Safety Act offering no protection because the property was a hotel rather than residential accommodation, the dispute turned on a fundamental question of landlord and tenant law: who was responsible for putting the problem right?

Whether you advise on hotels, offices, retail or mixed-use developments, this episode highlights why careful drafting of repair and compliance provisions has never been more important.

Relevant cases: 

Credit Suisse v Beegas Nominees Ltd [1994]

Welsh v Greenwich London Borough Council (2000)

Get in touch!

Training & Free Webinars for Property Professionals:

Would you like to keep up to date with the latest in real estate law? Davitt Jones Bould offers legal training tailored to your organisation’s needs, delivered in person across the UK or remotely. We also run free monthly webinars through for surveyors, solicitors, and property professionals across sectors. To sign up or learn more, visit our events page here or email [email protected] for information and booking. 

This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not intended to provide legal or professional advice. No liability is accepted by Davitt Jones Bould for any reliance placed on its content.

Get in touch!

In this episode, Richard and Lizzie unpack the County Court’s decision in Star Pubs Trading Ltd v Gunmakers Arms (Essex) LLP and what it means for landlords, tenants, pub operators, and commercial property lawyers.

The court ruled that Star Pubs could successfully oppose lease renewal under Ground G of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, despite day-to-day pub operations being carried out by a third-party contractor.

Why? Star Pubs still controlled the pricing, branding, contracts, marketing, and overall retail strategy. The business, legally speaking, remained theirs.

Richard explore’s what “occupation for your own business” really means in modern commercial leasing, why physical presence is not the deciding factor, and how this case fits alongside authorities including Humber Oil Terminals Trustee Ltd v Associated British Ports, S Frances Ltd v Cavendish Hotel (London) Ltd and Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea v Mellcraft.

Relevant cases:
Humber Oil Terminals Trustee Ltd v Associated British Ports [2012]
Cunliffe v Goodman [1951]
S Frances Ltd v Cavendish Hotel (London) Ltd [2012]
Dellneed Ltd v Chin (1987)
Brumwell v Powys County Council [2011]
Teesside Indoor Bowls Limited v Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council [1990]
Graysim Holdings v P&O Property Holdings [1996]
Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea v Mellcraft [2024]

Get in touch!

Training & Free Webinars for Property Professionals:

Would you like to keep up to date with the latest in real estate law? Davitt Jones Bould offers legal training tailored to your organisation’s needs, delivered in person across the UK or remotely. We also run free monthly webinars through for surveyors, solicitors, and property professionals across sectors. To sign up or learn more, visit our events page here or email [email protected] for information and booking. 

This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not intended to provide legal or professional advice. No liability is accepted by Davitt Jones Bould for any reliance placed on its content.

Get in touch!

Does a telecoms operator need to physically occupy the demised premises for the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 to apply? According to the Upper Tribunal in EE v Clock Tower Investments Limited [2026] UKUT 163 (LC), the answer may be far more complicated than expected.

In this episode, Richard and Lizzie unpack the surprising decision that a telecommunications lease could still benefit from the protection of the 1954 Act even where the operator did not physically occupy the demised ground itself, instead using adjacent roof space through installation and access rights.

The case raises important questions around what “occupation for business purposes” really means.

Richard discusses:
•Why the Upper Tribunal decided the 1954 Act applied
•The significance of business occupation under the Act
•The difference between physical possession and operational control
•The wider implications for landlords, operators and property lawyers.

Relevant cases:
Land Reclamation Co Ltd v Basildon District Council [1979]
Pointon York Group Plc v Ann Doreen Poulton (2006)
Re No 1 Albemarle Street [1959]
Moody v Steggles (1879)
Re Ellenborough Park [1955]
Re Salvin’s Indenture [1938]
Stenner v Teignbridge DC [2025]
AP Wireless II (UK) Ltd v On Tower (UK) Limited [2025]

Get in touch!

Training & Free Webinars for Property Professionals:

Would you like to keep up to date with the latest in real estate law? Davitt Jones Bould offers legal training tailored to your organisation’s needs, delivered in person across the UK or remotely. We also run free monthly webinars through for surveyors, solicitors, and property professionals across sectors. To sign up or learn more, visit our events page here or email [email protected] for information and booking. 

This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not intended to provide legal or professional advice. No liability is accepted by Davitt Jones Bould for any reliance placed on its content.

Get in touch!