Expert advice how to stay on top of the latest legal developments for property professionals

Staying on top of the latest legal developments is a perennial challenge for even the most diligent property professionals.

The pace and complexity of change in English property law demand constant vigilance. For this reason, I make it my business to keep abreast of the most significant developments—so you do not have to.

In this article, I examine three recent High Court decisions and the proposed English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, highlighting the key lessons and practical implications for landlords, tenants, and property owners navigating an increasingly complex legal landscape.

London Trocadero v Picturehouse Cinemas

In this case, the landlord sought to recover insurance premiums from the tenant, including a substantial commission returned to the landlord via its broker. The High Court held that, unless a lease expressly permits it, a landlord cannot recover insurance commission or additional fees from tenants as part of the insurance rent. The lease must clearly authorise such recoveries.

For tenants, this decision underscores the necessity of scrutinising lease terms, particularly those relating to insurance and service charges. Tenants should be alert to the risk of being overcharged for costs not expressly permitted by the lease, and may be entitled to reclaim overpaid sums—potentially significant over the life of a lease.

Iya Patarkatsishvili & Vevhen Hunyak v William Woodward-Fisher

The seller of a property denied knowledge of a moth infestation in response to pre-contract enquiries, despite being aware of the issue and relevant reports. The buyers, relying on these replies, purchased the property for £32.5 million, only to discover a severe moth infestation post-completion. The court found the seller’s denial to be a fraudulent misrepresentation, entitling the buyers to rescind (tear up) the contract and claim damages.

This decision highlights the importance of honest and comprehensive disclosure in property transactions. Sellers must answer pre-contract enquiries truthfully and disclose all relevant information. Failure to do so may result in the contract being set aside and a liability for damages being imposed.

Cooper/Powell  v Ludgate House Ltd

Owners of flats neighbouring a newly constructed 19-storey office building claimed the development interfered with their right to light. The court determined that the new building alone caused sufficient loss of light to constitute a legal nuisance. However, it declined to order demolition, citing the disproportionate harm this would cause to the developer and the public.

Instead, the claimants were awarded £850,000 in “negotiating damages”—a sum reflecting what the parties might have agreed upon in a hypothetical negotiation for the loss of light.

Property owners affected by new developments that block their light may claim compensation. The court may opt for financial compensation over demolition where the latter would be unreasonable. Notably, compensation can be assessed on the basis of a hypothetical negotiation, rather than the actual loss suffered.

The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, introduced to Parliament on 10 July 2025, proposes, among other measures, the prohibition of certain upwards-only rent reviews in new and renewal commercial leases.

This Bill represents a significant intervention in the commercial leasing market, with potentially far-reaching implications for property investment and finance. While the measure is intended to foster fairer, more flexible leasing arrangements and support high street regeneration, its ultimate impact will depend on the final legislative text and the market’s response.

Naylor Solicitors LLP concluded

These recent cases underscore the critical importance of precise and unambiguous lease drafting, the necessity for honest and comprehensive disclosure by all parties involved, and the principle that remedies must be proportionate to the infringement of property rights. Nevertheless, the government’s proposed intervention in the commercial rent market may represent the most consequential development.

While the judiciary continues to shape the landscape of property law through careful interpretation and incremental development, it is ultimately the legislature that wields the greater power to effect sweeping change. The courts may refine and clarify, but it is Parliament that can redraw boundaries altogether—the pen of the lawmaker being mightier than the gavel of the judge.