- within Employment and HR topic(s)
- with readers working within the Property industries
Introduction
Greetings all, and welcome to the spring edition of the Gatehouse Property Newsletter. It has been a busy couple of months, in terms of both work and engaging with our clients. Some of you will have bumped into members of the team at MIPIM in Cannes last month, and we are looking forward to UKREiiF in May.
Work-wise, the team has been instructed on some of the most important legal issues of the moment, with various members either heading to, or preparing for, hearings in the Court of Appeal, on cases with wide-ranging impact such as Mazur.
Our articles this month focus on the tribunal, Andrew Skelly looks at modification of covenants under s.84 in the Upper Tribunal, whilst Philip Marriott explains the complexity of multi-tenant claims for rent repayment orders in the FTT and changes to those orders under the Renters Rights Act. Looking at the courts, Victoria Dacie-Lombardo’s “Did you Miss?” feature examines what amounts to an admission under CPR Part 14. We hope you enjoy!
Editor – David Peachey
Property Newsletter - Full Audio
News
Members and staff from the Property team will be attending the UK Real Estate Investment & Infrastructure Forum (UKREiiF) 2026, taking place in Leeds from 20–22 May 2026.
UKREiiF is a major annual event for the real estate and infrastructure sectors, bringing together developers, investors, local authorities and legal professionals to discuss opportunities, challenges and future trends across the built environment.
If you or any of your colleagues will be attending, do get in touch if you would like to arrange a meeting.
What have we been up to?
Brie Stevens-Hoare KC has been looking at Building Safety which have resulted in the wholesale decanting of leaseholders following years of being let down by all the professionals supposedly helping. Before heading off to MiPiM (for more hard work of a different kind) Brie has also been looking at specific performance in the context of repairing obligations and options.
Daniel Gatty has been dealing with easements, restrictive covenants, a dispute about development finance, a failed fractional investment scheme and alleged solicitors’ professional negligence, amongst other things.
Andrew Skelly has had a varied month, advising as to ownership of land where there had not been any formal transfer, and the occupier wants to regularise the position; advising as to the construction of a Transfer in a boundary dispute; advising as to a claim against creditors and receivers on the grounds that the property was sold at an undervalue; and resisting an application in the High Court to strike out a claim, and pursuing a cross-application to strike out the defence, where the court was critical of both parties.
James Hall has been in the Court of Appeal on Mazur on behalf of the Law Centres Network, led by PJ Kirby KC. The appeal which was heard in the last week of February was fascinating and important. Most notably, Mrs Mazur herself and her husband Mr Stuart made for excellent advocates. The Court of Appeal will have a tough decision to make in view of the muddled nature of the Legal Services Act.
Jamal Demachkie spent some of last month hard at work networking in Cannes during MIPIM-week, during which he had to find the time for some urgent Court of Appeal submissions on an upcoming forfeiture appeal.
David Peachey has had a geographically diverse month, visiting all points of the compass for site visits and court hearings. The cases involved have all been so interesting – from forfeiture to restrictive covenants – that they truly justified the travel, although the most recent case really was a nuisance. His most exciting outing was, however, closer to home – over to the Court of Appeal to argue that an appeal against a lease renewal decision should not continue where the lease had been forfeited.
Lina Mattsson received judgment in her long-awaited Ground (f) appeal in Spirit Pub Co (Managed) London Ltd v Pridewell Properties (London) Ltd. Mr J Fancourt’s decision is an interesting read for landlords and tenants alike when a landlord’s redevelopment requires planning permission. Read the judgment here.
Victoria Dacie-Lombardo has had a busy month, including a fun few days at a trusts conference in Lisbon which involved lots of networking and even more pastel de nata. She has also been advising on the recoverability of energy costs via service charges and considering the impact of the new regulatory regime in respect of “heat networks” which has potentially significant and far reaching implications for landlords of residential blocks that are heated by a communal heat source. Away from her desk and in court, she successfully defeated an application for permission to appeal in respect of an order for possession concerning a high value residential property. Now she is turning her mind to long leases and questions concerning forfeiture and consent.
Philip Marriott has been working on determinations for breaches of a residential lease, adverse possession of charity land, and various matters arising out of a property guardianship arrangement.
David Lipson has been drafting a defence and counterclaim in response to a nuisance and negligence claim concerning water ingress to the basement of a property, alongside the usual residential possession hearings (section 8, section 21 and mortgage) and disrepair disputes.
Mark Erridge has been instructed in a claim involving an overriding interest in the form of an unpaid vendor’s lien, an application for an order for sale under section 14 TOLATA, an appeal of the making of an interim possession order, advising in respect of a claim by the sub-lessee under a shared ownership lease to enforce freeholder repairing covenants (where these have been transferred to a Right to Manage company), and various other possession and housing disrepair matters.
A cynical s84 hunt
In Harrison-Ellis v Hunt [2025] UKUT 295 (LC), the Upper Tribunal considered an application to modify restrictive covenants following the redevelopment of a bungalow into a larger property in breach of those covenants. The case provides a timely reminder of the Tribunal’s approach to “cynical breach” and the importance of conduct on both sides. While developers who build first and seek permission later may face difficulties, this decision highlights that objectors who fail to engage or delay action may also undermine their position. With useful guidance on discretion, compensation, and neighbour conduct, this is a decision well worth a closer read.
Article by Andrew Skelly.
Navigating Joint Tenancies and Rent Repayment Orders
In 122 Widdenham Road (LON/00AU/HMF/2025/0753), the First-tier Tribunal has raised an important procedural issue for Rent Repayment Order (RRO) claims involving joint tenancies. Despite earlier findings in favour of the tenants, the application was ultimately dismissed due to concerns about who must be party to the claim. The decision potentially introduces a significant hurdle for tenants and appears to sit uneasily with existing Upper Tribunal authority. With the implications for future RRO claims—particularly as the regime becomes more valuable—this is a development landlords and tenants alike will want to watch closely.
Article by Philip Marriot
Did you miss? Marshall & Edwards v Marshall & Marshall [2025] EWHC 3376 (Ch) Deputy Master Linwood, High Court (ChD), 5 December 2025
A recent decision of Deputy Master Linwood concerns two linked applications in respect of an alleged pre‑action admission under CPR 14.
This article provides a helpful summary of the principles the court will take into account when deciding (i) whether an admission has been made within the meaning of CPR 14.1 and (ii) if so, whether the Court ought to exercise its discretion to allow the admission to be withdrawn.
Article by Victoria Dacie-Lombardo
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]
