Property and Land Disputes

We acted for a mortgage lender following a challenge made by a debtor. The challenge arose from standard documentation used by the client, and so the challenge could have set a precedent which would apply to all mortgagees on the same terms and conditions.

We successfully assisted our client through a trial in the Property Chamber, First-tier Tribunal, an appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), and an application by the debtor for judicial review.

We were also successful in helping our client to defeat parallel proceedings issued by the debtor in the High Court, bringing claims for damages.

Proceedings for possession of the property were also issued by another mortgage lender in the County Court. This lender is the first mortgagee which is registered against the title to the property.

Successfully managing the various different parties and the proceedings in the differing courts was a significant challenge. We were able to accomplish this while also being mindful of the legal precedent which this case could set.

We assisted our client with terminating its occupation of a substantial premises in London.

This involved exercising a break option in the client’s lease and developing a strategy for compliance with the break conditions which included payment of rent, giving up occupation and leaving behind no continuing sub-tenancies. (The matter was complicated by the fact that the client had granted several sub-tenancies.)

We also advised the client on its potential liability for dilapidations and reinstatement under the lease.

This was a crucial matter for the charity, as if the lease had continued for the remaining five years of the term, it would have had severe financial consequences.

We acted for a company (the landlord and owner of a property) that issued proceedings for forfeiture of a residential tenancy on the grounds that the tenant had carried out unlawful alterations in the property.

Our client’s case was that the unlawful alterations were affecting the structural integrity of the building, causing severe cracking.

The main challenge of the case was the disputed expert evidence. The experts expressed very different and opposing evidence about the causes of the structural damage at the property.

This forced the case to go to trial, so that the Tribunal could adjudicate on whether the tenant was in breach of covenants, and if so, whether the breach of covenants caused the cracking at the property.

The First-tier Tribunal (Residential Property) found in our favour, ruling that the tenant had breached covenants in the tenancy by carrying out unauthorised alterations.

Part of the judgment was appealed to the Upper Tier Tribunal (Lands Chamber) to establish whether the unauthorised alterations were the cause of the cracking. We were successful in this appeal.