From service charges to rights of light, restrictive covenants to injunctions, this year has been full of significant Court decisions. These have covered the full range of property matters whether they be residential, commercial, landlord and tenant, property development or building safety related. We have picked twelve of our personal "favourites", which all those involved in real estate should consider as we approach 2026.
Rights of light – Cooper v Ludgate House Limited and Powell v Ludgate House Limited [2025] EWHC 1724 (Ch)
In July we examined the impact of the Cooper and Powell cases, heard together, on rights to light. Such cases very rarely make it to trial so the decision is hugely significant in demonstrating how the Courts will decide whether to grant injunctions in such cases. It is essential reading for all those involved in development where rights of light play a role, with the Court plotting a course that ultimately protects development and seeks to re-balance the rights of neighbouring property owners who challenge urban schemes.
What does the Courts recent decision on rights to light mean for development?
"Mothgate!" – Patarkatsishvili and Hunyak v William Woodward-Fisher [2025] EWHC 265 (Ch)
In February we reviewed "Mothgate", the case in which the High Court ordered the rescission of a multi-million pound property sale and payment of damages, due to a failure to disclose a severe infestation of clothes moths. The Court found that the seller knew about the infestation and fraudulently misrepresented that there was no such problem during the conveyancing process – reminding us that there are limits to the maxim "buyer beware".
Buyer beware, seller take care!
Lease extensions – Hanson & Anor v Harding & Ors [2025] UKUT 78 (LC)
In April we took a look at statutory residential lease extension claims under the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. The decision by the Upper Tribunal that compensation can only be realised by a landlord at the end of a lease term, and therefore its net present value should be reduced to reflect this, is an important reminder for those dealing with lease extensions that development value is often worth less than it may first appear once the remaining lease term is taken into account.
How does development value affect the value of a residential statutory lease extension claim
Awaab's Law – The Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025
In November we summarised some of the key measures of the newly introduced "Awaab's Law", which came into force in the social housing sector in October 2025. The strict new timescales for responding to hazards include statutory requirements for emergency works to be undertaken within 24 hours and for significant hazards to be investigated within 10 working days, findings shared within three working days, and remedial works to be started within five working days of the investigation conclusion. We recommended that streamlining repairs processes, building capacity for rapid response, and embedding a proactive compliance culture is key for social landlords, otherwise consequences could be costly.
Recent Developments in Housing Conditions Claims
Restrictive covenants and long leases - Great Jackson Street Estates Limited v The Council of the City of Manchester [2025] EWCA Civ 652
June saw the Court of Appeal dismiss the tenant's appeal to modify covenants contained within its long leases, even where those covenants restricted the tenant's ability to develop, as those covenants secured a "practical benefit" to the Council landlord in allowing it to control redevelopment of the site. Importantly, it agreed with the Upper Tribunal that Councils were able to oppose development pursuant to lease covenants entitling them to do so, even where the same Council as local planning authority had granted planning permission for the development.
Two hatted Councils lease covenants upheld
Telecoms and the Electronic Communications Code – Vodafone Limited v Icon Tower Infrastructure Limited and AP Wireless II (UK) Limited [2025] UKUT 58 (LC)
In February we looked at Vodafone v Icon Tower, the first case in which the termination grounds under Part 5 of the Electronic Communications Code were considered. As with most Telecoms cases, the site provider's rights were protected as the landowner's termination grounds all failed. It is essential reading for all of those involved in telecoms and considering the various grounds under which landlords can consider terminating code agreements with operators.
Termination pursuant to the Electronics Communications Code
Trespassers and injunctions on land – MBR Acres Ltd v Curtin [2025] EWHC 331 (KB)
In May we discussed updates to the world of "newcomer injunctions", where landowners (both public bodies and private entities) can apply for injunctions against Persons Unknown to stop those people carrying out certain activities on their land, including when those individuals have not even carried out those acts. The case ultimately found that drones being flown at the height of a 15-16 storey building did not interfere with the ordinary use of land in this case, although in principle trespass by drones was acknowledged to be possible.
Can a drone be a (trespassing) newcomer?
Building safety and limits on the First-Tier Tribunal's jurisdiction - Monier Road Limited v Blomfield and others [2025] UKUT 157 (LC)
June saw the Upper Tribunal remind the FTT that its scope to consider matters outside of those pleaded by the parties is restricted and that in doing so, even in matters such as building safety, the FTT can raise points not previously raised but must remember that proceedings are adversarial and not inquisitorial. It is for the parties to present their cases and the relevant court or tribunal to make a decision – not for that court or tribunal to state a party's case for them. The decision gives helpful guidance as to procedurally how remediation orders should operate.
A new chapter in the Smoke House and Curing House "storey"
Right to Manage – The Courtyard RTM Co Ltd and others v Rockwell (FC103) Ltd and another [2025] UKUT 39 (LC)
In March, the Upper Tribunal considered what amounted to a "self-contained part of a building" in a development containing multiple blocks, entitling qualifying tenants to acquire the right to manage under section 72 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. The issues of vertical divisibility, whether each block could be redeveloped independently, and as to whether services could be delivered independently of the services for the remainder of the building, were all examined in detail when determining whether a block amounted to a self-contained part of a building for right to manage purposes.
What constitutes a self-contained part of a building for the purposes of the Right to Manage?
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 - Ministry of Sound Limited v The British and Foreign Wharf Company Limited (2025, County Court at Central London)
In December we reported on Ministry of Sound Ltd v The British and Foreign Wharf Co Ltd, which concerned the renewal of a lease for the London nightclub. The court ruled that the new lease should include a landlord’s redevelopment break clause, finding there was a real possibility of redevelopment during the term and that excluding such a clause would unfairly hinder development. The judgment confirmed the need for a fair balance between landlords’ development interests and tenants’ security under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.
Sound Judgment
Residential service charges - Bradley and Rhodes v Abacus Land 4 Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 1308
In November we considered Bradley and Rhodes v Abacus Land 4 Ltd, a dispute about the apportionment of gym maintenance costs. The Court of Appeal allowed the landlord's appeal and confirmed that where a lease requires a landlord to act reasonably in apportioning service charges, the landlord will only be in breach if its decision is one that no reasonable landlord could have made. This is a positive ruling for residential landlords who will only fall foul in these circumstances if they make a decision no other reasonable landlord would have made.
The Court of Appeal backs landlord in s27A dispute over reasonableness of the apportionment of service charges
Access injunctions – Southern Housing v James Emmanuel [2025] EWCC 58
In November we discussed Southern Housing v James Emmanuel, in which the County Court held that it has no power to grant a landlord permission to force entry into a tenant’s home, even for legally required inspections or safety checks in the context of access injunctions. Landlords faced with refusal must instead pursue eviction or contempt proceedings, as any right to force entry would require legislative change.
A landlord cannot force entry to a tenant's home to carry out gas safety inspections
As we look ahead to 2026, we can expect to see a continuation of the wide reach of property disputes, with new remedies under the Building Safety Act 2022 due to reach the Supreme Court, as well as the first claims made under Awaab's Law likely to reach the Courts. 2026 will also see the Courts and Tribunals under increasing pressure, with the Renters Rights Act 2025 likely to result in greater numbers of possession claims in the County Court and rent challenges in the First-tier Tribunal. As property litigators, the festive gift we would most like to see is increased investment to support a properly functioning Courts and Tribunals system, so that the enforcement of the substantial volume of new legislation doesn't founder on Court delays.
