ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE INSURANCE LTD  v HARROW LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL (2026) UKUT 197 (LC) holds that the Lands Chamber of the Upper Tribunal has JURISDICTION to award costs in a TREE PRESERVATION ORDER compensation case under the TPO Regulations 2012. The damage to the claimant’s property caused by the Council’s refusal to permit the felling of 2 trees under a TPO meant that the proceedings constituted “ proceedings for injurious affection of land “ within the Lands Chamber Rules. The refusal of consent to fell the trees resulted in the damage to the property. The damage was the cracking and subsidence which resulted from the refusal to allow the felling of the trees.

PALMER v PLYMOUTH CITY COUNCIL (2026) EWHC 1262 (Ch) holds that Section 144 of Law of Property Act 1925 ( Landlord’s ability to charge a premium for CONSENT TO ALIENATION) and Section 19 of Landlord and tenant Act 1927 (dealing with all aspects of alienation) are NOT inescapably inconsistent. BOTH apply to a covenant requiring a premium for consent to assignment.

Common land is defined by 2 mutually exclusive types of land : land subject to rights of common; and waste land of the manor, not subject to rights of common. R(COMBER) v HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (2026) EWHC 1244 (Admin) holds that there is NO JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE AN APPLICATION TO REGISTER LAND as “ wate land of a manor not subject to rights of common”, within Section 22(1)(b) of the COMMONS REGISTRATION ACT 1965 when the registration authority is not a “ pioneer authority  operating the scheme in the 2006 Act.

A LAW COMMISSION REPORT, published on 18 March 2026, sets out the findings of its Review of Burial and Cremation Law. It highlights issues as to the fragmented and outdated legal framework.

On 13 November 2025 MHCLG has published for local authorities and others GUIDANCE on thr RENTERS’ RIGHTS ACT 2025, including an IMPLEMENTATION ROADMAP.

In R ( Margery Kempe Trust ) v Norfolk County Council, the Garage Trust Interested Party (2025) EWHC 2840 ( Admin ) the Council had declared King’s Lynn Central Library surplus to its requirements. It instructed its Director of Property to dispose of the building through a closed market exercise, to chaity and community groups in the first instance. These included the Claimant and the IP. The subsequent decicion challenged was to sell the Carnegie Library building to the IP. The Claimant’s wide ranging challenge failed on all 8 grounds.

In NORTHUMBERLAND HEALTH CARE NHS FOUNDATION TRUST v HMRC (2025) UKSC 37 the Supreme Court is concerned with the provision of car parking for reward at or near a hospital site. The Court addresses VAT on “economic activities”, when a supply of goods and services by a public body is not to be treated as a supply by a taxable person, and when a public body is to be treated as acting as a public authority and there is a “special legal regime.” The Supreme Court also addresses the issue of distortion of competition.

The RENTERS RIGHTS ACT has become law. It gives local housing authorities (LHAs) significantly enhanced powers. These include to enter business and residential properties without a warrant, to demand documentary evidence of compliance, to impose civil penalties for new offences, and to take action against landlords who fail to register on the new private sector landlord database, or who market properties illegally. Part 4 of the Act relates to enforcement. Chapter 2 of Part 4 relates to enforcement authorities. It will be the duty of every LHA to enforce the “ landlord legislation “ in its area. Chapter 3 relates to investigatory powers, including to require information. The Secretary of State may issue or approve GUIDANCE for LHAs and the administrators of landlord redress schemes about cooperation between LHAs and persons exercising functions under such schemes.

The approach to, and steps to be taken towards, the forfeiture of a valuable lease for breach of covenant, the purpose of proceedings under Section 168(4) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, and the requirements for a Notice under Section 146 of the Law of Property Act 1925, are set out by Martin Rodger KC, Deputy Chamber President, in CALMAN v STACK HOUSE RESIDENTS ( OXTED ) LTD (2025) UKUT 342 (LC) at paras 5 and 42.

NATIONAL IRANIAN OIL CO v CRESCENT GAS CORPORATION LTD ( 2025 ) EWCA Civ 1211 concerns, over 288 pages, the interpretation and effect of Section 53 (1) (b) of the LAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1925. That provides that a DECLARATION OF TRUST respecting ANY LAND OR INTEREST THEREIN MUST be manifested and proved by some writing signed by some person who is able to declare such trust. The principal questions of interpretation were (1) whether the document evidencing the Declaration of Trust can be signed by an AGENT of the person whose interest in land is subject to the Declaration of Trust and (2) if the answer to that question is, in respect of a natural person, “ No “, how the Section can be complied with by a COMPANY. The appeal also raised consequential questions as to the CONSEQUENCES OF NON-COMPLIANCE.