header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
09 August 2024 / Edward Peters KC , Ashpen Rajah
Issue: 8083 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Property , Landlord&tenant
printer mail-detail

Landlord & tenant update

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
185051
A zoo that never materialised, misrepresented restaurant ventures & the question of a tenant’s ‘principal’ home. Edward Peters KC & Ashpen Rajah discuss three useful new cases
  • Case one: when and how waiver of forfeiture can take place.
  • Case two: opposition by misrepresentation, where a commercial landlord was held to be liable to its former tenant, McDonald’s, under s 37A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.
  • Case three: the question of whether residential premises are a tenant’s ‘only or principal home’.

The steady stream of new landlord and tenant authorities flows apace, as it has done for centuries; and from the almost infinite variety of disputes that can arise between landlords and tenants, we have selected three interesting and useful new cases on the following legal issues: the ever-important, but sometimes overlooked, law of waiver of forfeiture; opposing a Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 business tenancy renewal by misrepresentation; and how to establish whether a dwelling constitutes a tenant’s ‘home’ and ‘principal home’.

Waiver of forfeiture:

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Workplace law firm expands commercial disputes team with senior consultant hire

EIP—Rob Barker

EIP—Rob Barker

IP firm promotes patent attorney to partner

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Banking and restructuring team bolstered by insolvency specialist

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Surrogacy children caught in succession gap
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
NLJ this week: Online safety law at a crossroads
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
NLJ this week: Do Mandelson and Mountbatten-Windsor meet the misconduct bar?
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
NLJ this week: Supreme Court unlocks ‘lost years’ windfall for injured children
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
NLJ this week: Finality trumps freedom in arbitration showdown
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll