Four recent court cases that could make a difference to you

It’s been a busy time in the courts. Our roundup looks through some of the key results, and what they could mean for you or your business:

1. Damages for disrepair

Is non-occupation fatal to any damages claim? Not according to the Court of Appeal, which looked at a case (Moorjani v Durban Estates) where a landlord’s breach of covenant caused damage to the flat of a residential long leaseholder (T). In the original trial, the judge had ruled the non-occupation, which was unconnected to the disrepair, as fatal to T’s damages claim. In this appeal it was ruled that whilst not fatal, the fact that damage was cosmetic and that T had chosen not to live in the property meant any damages should be significantly discounted.

2. Specifying leaseback terms

A recent Court of Appeal decision has helped clarify the statutory requirements for leaseback proposals in freeholders’ counternotices. It questioned whether freeholders should specify their proposed terms of leaseback in the counter notice, but found as tenants are not required to identify their terms in their initial notice there is no reason freeholders should be more explicit. Also, when identifying the leaseback premises in the counternotice a freeholder is responsible for making the identity of the property clear but it also highlighted section 36 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 as an example suggesting a mistaken misdescription of the relevant flat should not stop a freeholder from having a leaseback of the whole flat.

Easements for leisure or sporting facilities

The High Court held there is no legal impediment to the grant of an easement for the right to use a swimming pool, golf course or tennis court as long as it is clearly not merely a personal right. There was no previous authority on this point.

Precedent In The Tribunal 

Does an Upper Tribunal decision automatically set a precedent for future cases? Not unless it is specified. Our last case from the Court of Appeal asked for clarification on decisions not designated as ‘guidance cases’. As the Upper Tribunal had not provided precedent guidelines, the relevant tribunal must determine how much weight to give to a previous decision.