Legal wrap: Smart buildings, service charges and the 1954 Act review

Welcome to your weekly round-up of the pick of the content published on EG Legal. This week, our smart buildings series continues with an analysis of the various challenges of retrofitting existing stock to bring it up to date, and the considerations that must be borne in mind when deciding whether it is worth it to do so. In addition, law commissioner Nick Hopkins offers us his thoughts as the Law Commission commences its review of Part 2 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. We also have the winning entry from the Property Bar Association’s student essay competition – and plenty more below. Legal news Holyoake settles bankruptcy dispute with Candy brothers The Insolvency Court hearing lasted less than two minutes Bermondsey live/work development means ‘live and/or work’, Court of Appeal rules Property can be used in whichever way the owners please due to an ambiguously worded lease Legal features Smart buildings: retrofit for purpose? Tim Streather and Jackie Newstead consider whether it is worth retrofitting an existing building The winding journey of the 1954 Act Nick Hopkins on how the Law Commission is helping shape the 1954 Act to meet society’s changing needs PBA student essay competition: Has equity gone too far? In his winning essay, Zachariah Pullar tackles proprietary estoppel Telecoms: upgrading and sharing New regulations roll out enhanced powers for telecoms operators, though issues remain, notes Laura West What’s in the pipeline for landlord and tenant legislation? Lucie Barnes addresses how key themes affecting landlords and tenants north and south of the border could translate into disputes Legal note: Recovery of service charges Louise Clark analyses a matter of construction and satisfaction of pre-conditions Practice points Demolition does not always equate to lawful implementation of a planning permission R (on the application of Atwill) v New Forest National Park Authority Co-insurance – a question of construction of the underlying contract FM Conway Ltd v The Rugby Football Union and others Occupiers’ liability: DLR not liable for injuries sustained on the track Drummond v Keolis Amey Docklands Ltd Property damage claim fails because claim not sufficiently particularised before limitation expiry Free Leisure Ltd (t/a Cirque Le Soir) v Peidl and Company Ltd (now dissolved) and another Case summaries R (on the application of Friends of West Oxfordshire Cotswolds) v West Oxfordshire District Council and another Town and country planning – Planning permission – Conditions AHGR Ltd v Kane-Laverack and another Landlord and tenant – Breach of covenant – “Live/work” concept Samuel Smith Old Brewery v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council Town and country planning – Planning permission – Demolition Law report Mooney v Whiteland Landlord and tenant – Periodic tenancy – Rent increase For more legal articles and to search our extensive archive, visit EG Legal  To send feedback, e-mail jess.harrold@eg.co.uk or tweet @EGPropertyNews