Tanfield Talks

In this episode of Tanfield Talks, Nicholas Isaac KC and Robyn Cunningham discuss boundary agreements and the issues that commonly arise in practice.The first half looks at the Court of Appeal’s decision in White v Alder [2025] EWCA Civ 392. The case considers informal boundary agreements and builds on a long line of authority on the subject. Nicholas and Robyn explore how informal agreements can come about, when the courts may be willing to recognise them, and the risks involved where boundaries have never been formally established.In the second half, the focus shifts to determined boundaries. The discussion considers what a determined boundary involves and whether seeking one is always the best course in practice.CitationsCases:White v Alder [2025] EWCA Civ 392Gibson v New [2021] EWHC 1811 (QB)Nata Lee Ltd v Abid [2015] 2 P. & C.R. 3Neilson v Poole (1969) 20 P. & C.R. 909Legislation: Land Registration Act 2022, s 60 Producer: Peter ShevlinA Pod60 production for Tanfieldhttps://pod60.com/

Christopher Heather KC and Elizabeth Fisher explore one of the oldest and most challenging areas of property law: forfeiture of leases. In this episode, they consider four recent cases that highlight the practical difficulties, key principles, and evolving aspects of forfeiture. Citations: CasesSik v Malik [2025] EWHC 383 (Ch) The Tropical Zoo Ltd v The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Hounslow [2024] EWHC 1240 (Ch).Tanfield v Meadowbrook Montessori Ltd [2024] EWHC 1759 (Ch)Freifeld v West Kensington Court Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 806Magnic Ltd v Ul-Hassan and anor [2015] EWCA Civ 224Bland v Ingrams Estates Ltd (No 2) [2001] EWCA Civ 1088First penthouse Ltd v Channel Hotels and Proper Ties (UK) Ltd [2003] EWHC 2713 (Ch)McDrury v Luporini [2000] 1 NZLR 652—> would we add?  Legislation Law of Property Act 1925, s 146 Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, s 25Producer: Peter ShevlinA Pod60 production for Tanfieldhttps://pod60.com/

SynopsisAndrew Brueton and Andrew Mace examine Section 423 of the Insolvency Act, which targets transactions designed to place assets beyond the reach of creditors. CasesInvest Bank PSC v El-Husseini [2022] EWCA 894 (Comm)El-Husseiny v Invest Bank PSC [2025] UKSC 4Purkiss v Kennedy [2025] EWCA Civ 268 and [2024] EWHC 1081 (Ch)Rangers Football Club 2012 Plc (In Liquidation) (formerly Rangers Football Club Plc) v Advocate General for Scotland [2017] UKSC 45Inland Revenue Commissioners v Duke of Westminster [1936] AC 1Allen v Hurst & Ors [2022] EWHC 2649 (Ch)Sayers v Dixon [2025] EWHC 1886 (Ch)Credit Suisse Virtuoso SICAV-SIF & Anor v SoftBank & Ors [2025] EWHC 2631 (Ch) Legislationss423, 424, 425 Insolvency Act 1986Producer: Peter ShevlinA Pod60 production for Tanfieldhttps://pod60.com/

Synopsis Martin Young and Nora Wannagat provide an introduction to issues arising when a corporate client faces liability for business rates and the impact of insolvency. Citations Cases:Cornhill Insurance plc v Improvement Services Ltd [1986] 1 WLR 114Re Toshoku Finance (UK) plc [2002] 1 WLR 671Exeter City Council v Bairstow [2007] EWHC 400 (Ch)Laing (John) & Son Ltd v Kingswood Assessment Area Assessment Committee [1948] 2 KB 116, [1948] 1 All ER 943, 46 LGR 321, 112 JP 304, [1948] LJR 1619, 64 TLR 407, 151 EG 411R (Secretary of State for Health & Social Care) v Harlow DC [2021] EWHC 909 AdminKaye v South Oxfordshire District Council [2013] EWHC 4165 (Ch), [2014] 2 All ER 1019, [2014] 2 BCLC 383, [2014] Bus LR 597, [2014] BPIR 416, [2014] All ER (D) 134 (Jan)Re Nortel GmbH (in administration) [2013] UKSC 52, [2014] AC 209, [2013] 4 All ER 887, [2013] 3 WLR 504, [2013] 2 BCLC 135, [2013] Bus LR 1056, (2013) Times, 19 August, [2013] BPIR 866, [2013] All ER (D) 283 (Jul) Legislation:Schedule B1, Insolvency Act 1986, para 3r.3.50 and 3.51 of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016r.6.42 of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016Non-Domestic Rating (Collection and Enforcement) (Local Lists) Regulations 1989 (SI 1989/1058) and in particular Regulation 18Non-Domestic Rating (Unoccupied Property) (England) Regulations 2008 (SI 2008/386)Producer: Peter ShevlinA Pod60 production for Tanfieldhttps://pod60.com/ 

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.

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 citationsLandlord and Tenant Act 1954Law Commission’s Consultation Paper 1 Business Tenancies: the right to renew, models of security of tenure (Consultation Paper 266) dated 19 November 2024Regulatory Reform Business Tenancies (England & Wales) Order 2003Landlord & Tenant Act 1927Law of Property Act 1969Agricultural Holdings Act 1948Producer: Peter ShevlinA Pod60 production for Tanfieldhttps://pod60.com/