Skip to Main content

Search results for ''...


Sorry, there were no results

Newsletter sign up

I would like to receive newsletters, event invitations and publications from Thomson Snell & Passmore by email on the following topics (tick all those that apply) and consent for my data to be processed for this purpose.

We respect your privacy and want news to be relevant. To either, click here or update your preferences by emailing us at info@ts-p.co.uk. Your personal data shall be treated in accordance with our & .

Get In Touch

By submitting an enquiry through 'get in touch' your data will only be used to contact you regarding your enquiry. If you would like to receive newsletters from Thomson Snell & Passmore please use the separate form below.

Newsletter sign up

I would like to receive newsletters, event invitations and publications from Thomson Snell & Passmore by email on the following topics (tick all those that apply) and consent for my data to be processed for this purpose.

We respect your privacy and want news to be relevant. To either, click here or update your preferences by emailing us at info@ts-p.co.uk. Your personal data shall be treated in accordance with our & .

Get In Touch

By submitting an enquiry through 'get in touch' your data will only be used to contact you regarding your enquiry. If you would like to receive newsletters from Thomson Snell & Passmore please use the separate form below.

  • Overview

    We acted for the tenant of a mixed use property in Central London whose landlord refused the tenant permission to make a planning application to use the upper floors for residential purposes.  The landlord refused permission on the grounds that it perceived the tenant’s ultimate motive was to try and force the sale of the freehold under the enfranchisement process.  The tenant issued court proceedings seeking a declaration as to the position.

    The Judge found for the tenant and decided that the landlord was trying to seek a financial advantage over the tenant by refusing consent, and that stance was unreasonable.

    Mark Steggles, the lead Partner on the matter, comments “this was an important decision for the tenant, who was being stopped from letting out the top floors of a Central London property even on assured shorthold tenancies and prevented from generating any income”. 

    Tiffany Scott of Wilberforce Chambers acted for the tenant. For more information on the case, please visit: Hautford Limited v Rotrust Nominees.

  • Related Services

    Property disputes including landlord & tenant

    The property world is highly diverse meaning disputes can arise in all shapes and sizes. Our team of property dispute lawyers pride themselves on their versatility to act for all types of clients, discussing their problems in clear language without unnecessary legal jargon in order to get the result they want. We don't impose standard solutions but our extensive knowledge of the property landscape means that we can give well informed advice geared to our clients’ specific needs both present and future.

Newsletter sign up

I would like to receive newsletters, event invitations and publications from Thomson Snell & Passmore by email on the following topics (tick all those that apply) and consent for my data to be processed for this purpose.

We respect your privacy and want news to be relevant. To either, click here or update your preferences by emailing us at info@ts-p.co.uk. Your personal data shall be treated in accordance with our & .

Get In Touch

By submitting an enquiry through 'get in touch' your data will only be used to contact you regarding your enquiry. If you would like to receive newsletters from Thomson Snell & Passmore please use the separate form below.

^
Jargon Buster