Our top ten property law cases of 2024

We bring you our top 10 property law cases of 2024, carefully selected by our real estate disputes team. These cases contain some important decisions for landowners, occupiers, and landlords and tenants (both commercial and residential).

Manchester Ship Canal Co Ltd v United Utilities Water Ltd [2024] UKSC 22 (nuisance)

This case arose out of a dispute between Manchester Ship Canal Co Ltd (the watercourse owner) and United Utilities Water Limited (the sewerage undertaker). The Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the watercourse owner could bring a claim in nuisance or trespass when its canal is polluted by discharges of foul water from outfalls maintained by the sewerage undertaker. United Utilities’ argued that the potential private law claims of the watercourse owner were impliedly ousted by the statutory enforcement mechanism, for breaches of duty by sewerage undertakers, provided by the Water Industry Act 1991.

The winner? Landowner. The Court found that the watercourse owner could bring a claim in nuisance against the sewerage undertaker. 

Watch this space. This case has been widely reported as potentially opening “the floodgates” on private law claims against sewage companies, so watch this space for claims of this nature in the future.

Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd v Medley Assets Ltd [2024] (opposed lease renewal)

The case involved a Sainsbury’s Local store on Kentish Town Road, London. Sainsbury’s lease included ground floor premises, used as the store, as well as basement and three upper floors, which, importantly, were unoccupied by Sainsbury’s. Sainsbury’s requested a new lease from its landlord under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954) and the landlord opposed the request based on the redevelopment ground (ground (f)), having obtained planning permission to change the use of the upper floors from ancillary retail floor space to residential, which also involved some minor alterations to the ground floor. 

An interesting and novel legal point arose out of the fact that Sainsbury’s only occupied the ground floor. The key consideration for the Court was the extent to which the Court could consider the works the landlord was undertaking to the unoccupied areas, the basement and upper floors, in assessing ground (f).

The winner? Tenant. It was successfully argued by Sainsbury’s that only the part of the premises which the tenant is occupying, is relevant in assessing ground (f). This meant only works to the store on the ground floor could be considered (which would be insufficient to satisfy ground (f), given these were only minor alterations).

Watch this space. Landlords will need to be alive to the possibility of tenants seeking to reduce the areas they occupy in an attempt to frustrate redevelopment proposals, where the landlord is opposing a renewal lease on ground (f). We'll need to see whether tenants start to adopt this practice, although in many cases it'll be impractical for them to do so.

Kwik-Fit Properties Ltd v Resham Ltd [2024] EWCC 4 (unopposed lease renewal)

Under the unopposed lease renewal process of the LTA 1954, a tenant can seek to include a break clause in a new lease granted.

In this case, the parties agreed that the new lease should be for a 15-year term, but Kwik-Fit (the tenant) was also seeking a tenant-only break every 5 years, on the basis that it needed flexibility in view of ongoing operational changes in its business. Kwik-Fit also sought to argue that it had a policy of seeking five-year breaks in longer leases and that agreeing leases with five-year breaks was market practice in the car maintenance industry generally.

The winner? Landlord. The Court refused to include a tenant’s break clause, finding a general need for flexibility was not enough – so Kwik-Fit’s new lease would be for a 15-year term without tenant breaks. The Court was also not convinced by the evidence put forward on Kwik-Fit’s policy or market practice. 

Watch this space. In lease renewal negotiations, landlords will no doubt seek to use this decision where they wish to push for longer term leases with no tenant breaks. It's important to recognise that this is only a County Court decision (so not binding as such) but it's a useful reminder of the operation of the LTA 1954.

University of Birmingham v Persons Unknown and Mariyah Ali [2024] EWHC 1770 (KB) and University of Nottingham v Butterworth and Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 1771 (KB) (student occupations)

This year has seen a number of student occupation cases arise in the context of the conflict between Israel and Palestine.

In both these cases, the student occupiers established protest encampments on the Universities’ campuses. Defences of discrimination contrary to the Equality Act 2010 and incompatibility with the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) (such as freedom of expression) were invoked by the student occupiers. 

The winner? Landowners. The Courts granted possession orders in both instances because there was no real prospect of the defendants showing the Universities had discriminated or interfered with the defendants’ rights under the ECHR.  

Watch this space. There may be similar occupations in 2025, given the current state of world affairs. The two decisions demonstrate the limitations on invoking human rights defences to defeat possession orders based on interferences with property rights. This is not to say that students cannot protest on university property. Both the Universities had free speech policies in place setting out a framework for protesting, which the students could have followed.

Brown v Ridley [2024] UKUT 14 (LC) (adverse possession)

This case involved an adverse possession claim of registered land under the Land Registration Act 2002. To be successful in such a claim, a ‘squatter’ must have had a reasonable belief that they were in adverse possession of the relevant land for a period of 10 years. Importantly, this belief has to end on the date the application is made to the Land Registry.

Mr and Mrs Ridley made an adverse possession application for a strip of land adjoining their property and their neighbours objected on the basis that the Ridleys’ reasonable belief that they were in adverse possession of the strip of land ended some time before the date of the application.

The winner? Landowner defending the adverse possession application. The Upper Tribunal found the squatter needs to have a reasonable belief in ownership that lasts ten years up until the date of the application. 

Watch this space. This case will make applications by squatters more challenging in the future, as a person who reasonably believes they are adversely possessing land must act quickly upon that belief, otherwise they may lose the ability to apply to be registered as proprietor.  

The Tropical Zoo v Hounslow London Borough Council [2024] EWHC 1240 (Ch) (forfeiture)

Landlords can forfeit (ie terminate) a lease where the tenant is in breach, although a landlord can lose the ability to do so through ‘waiver’ (ie the landlord acknowledges the existence of the lease after a breach has arisen). 

The lease in this case contained a construction covenant requiring the Tropical Zoo Ltd (the tenant) to build a zoo within two years, which it failed to do (due to a lack of funding). The landlord waived its right to forfeit the lease based on the breach of this construction covenant. However, the lease also contained a covenant by the tenant to remedy any breach of tenant covenant within two months after service of notice by the landlord (notice covenant). The landlord served notice to remedy the breach of the construction covenant, which the tenant did not comply with, and the landlord proceeded to forfeit.

Winner? Landlord. The Court found that the landlord could forfeit based on a breach of the notice covenant, even where the landlord had waived its right to forfeit based on the tenant’s original breach of the construction covenant. 

Watch this space. Landlords may look to use this case in the future to improve their position on forfeiture, as it gives them a second bite of the cherry where there is an obligation in the lease for the tenant to remedy breaches following notice served by the landlord.

Davies v Bridgend CBC [2024] UKSC 15 (nuisance)

This case involved a landowner claiming damages for diminution in value of their property caused by the presence of Japanese knotweed encroaching from neighbouring land, owned by the local authority (who purchased the neighbouring land in 2004, after the encroachment began). The local authority implemented a treatment programme in 2018, but between 2013 and 2018, had not taken any action.

Winner? Landowner defending claim in private nuisance. The Court found the local authority had not caused the landowner’s diminution in value of their property. This diminution (caused by the presence of Japanese knotweed) had occurred long before the local authority’s breach of duty between 2013 and 2018.

Watch this space. This case is significant because a landowner can escape liability for private nuisance if the ‘but for’ causation test concludes that a subsequent breach did not cause diminution in value.

A1 Properties (Sunderland) Ltd v Tudor Studios RTM Co Ltd [2024] UKSC 27 (right to manage)

Tenants may acquire the right to take over management of their blocks of flats by following a process under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. This requires a claim notice to be served by qualifying tenants on their landlord.

A1 Properties was a landlord under multiple intermediate leases in a block of student accommodation. It had no management responsibilities under those leases. Tudor Studios (qualifying tenant) wished to acquire the right to manage the building, but it failed to serve notice of its claim on A1 Properties (it only served the freeholder and management company). 

Winner? Tenant. A failure to serve the claim notice on the intermediate landlord was not fatal to the right to manage process. 

Watch this space. The case will make it more difficult for landlords to resist right to manage claims where their challenge is based on procedural non-compliance. It may also have more far-reaching consequences for other property notices served under statute, particularly where the consequences of non-compliance are not specified.  

Triathlon Homes LLP v Stratford Village Development Partnership & Others [2024] UKFTT 26 (PC) (building safety)

Under the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA), the First-Tier Tribunal can require a developer or building owner (or their associated companies) to make payments in connection with remedying certain defects in high-rise residential buildings. These are known as remediation contribution orders (RCOs) and can be granted where it would be ‘just and equitable’.

This case concerned residential buildings originally developed to provide accommodation for athletes during the 2012 Olympic Games. It was identified that there were defects in the buildings including in relation to the cladding. Works were implemented to replace the cladding. Triathlon Homes, a long leaseholder who owned a number of units within the buildings, made applications for RCOs against the developer of the buildings.    

Winner? Tenant seeking RCO. This is currently the leading case on RCOs and provides helpful guidance for the approach the Courts should take in deciding what is ‘just and equitable’.  

Watch this space. There are likely to be many more RCOs cases to come, involving developers, landlords and their contractors and consultants, as liability is cascaded down amongst those involved in the development of buildings caught by the BSA.

Business rates cases

This entry relates to a collection of business rates cases, as 2024 has proved a fruitful year for litigation in the rating world. We've separately published our top business rates cases of 2024, which can be found here.

If you'd like any further information about these cases or have any questions about the impact of these cases for your business, please get in touch with Richard New and Samuel Maw.

This article follows on from last year’s top 10 picks, which can be found here.

Our content explained