Latest Posts
Quastels LLP Announces New Leadership Titles as Firm Enhances Strategic Direction
We are proud to announce that David Quastel adds to his current title of Managing Partner to also become our Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and Jonathan Neilan adds to his current title becoming our Chief Operating Officer (COO). These appointments are a strategic move to meet the firm’s requirements as it continues to innovate and expand its services.
David Quastel, one of the co-founders and the longstanding Managing Partner of Quastels LLP, will now also serve as CEO. Having steered the firm since its inception nearly 30 years ago, David’s role as CEO is set to further enhance the strategic vision, development and operational excellence at Quastels. “I am honoured to assume the additional role of CEO, which reflects our ongoing commitment to leadership at the firm and our dedication to provide the finest service to clients and a direct force for their success” David said.
Jonathan Neilan, who has significantly contributed to the firm’s development over the past two decades, as partner will now also hold the title COO & Operations Partner. This appointment recognises his pivotal role in managing the firm’s growth and operational strategies. Jonathan remarked: “Stepping into the role of COO & Operations Partner is an exciting new chapter for me and for Quastels. Our focus on operational excellence and client-centric solutions has always been at the heart of our success.”
These leadership enhancements come at a time when Quastels LLP continues to commit to the highest standards of service, ensuring client satisfaction and innovative solutions in the dynamic legal landscape.
Sainsbury’s Secures Lease Renewal Despite Landlord’s Redevelopment Plans
In the recent case of Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Limited – v- Medley Assets Limited, Sainsbury’s (the tenant of a commercial unit in Kentish Town, North London) successfully prevented their landlord from carrying out redevelopment plan, securing a new lease under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (“LTA”).
Bachground
Sainsbury’s owned the leasehold interest of a whole building on Kentish Town Road, but only occupied the ground floor space. The upper floors were empty, and the landlord wished to convert them into flats, having obtained planning permission from the London Borough of Camden. The landlord served a Section 25 Notice, opposing the grant of a new tenancy on the grounds of redevelopment (known as ground ‘f’ opposition).
What Is A Holding?
The right to renewal of a lease afforded protection by virtue of the LTA is with reference to the ‘holding’ i.e. the part of the property occupied by the tenant for purposes of its business. In order to satisfy opposition on the grounds of redevelopment, a landlord must demonstrate a firm and settled intention to carry out works to the holding and that such works cannot be undertaken without having first obtained vacant possession of the holding.
Critically, the court will only determine what constitutes the holding at the date of the trial of the landlord’s ground of opposition, not when a landlord served its Section 25 Notice. This is possibly why the landlord amended its redevelopment plans (widening a staircase from the ground to the upper parts, lowering the basement floor and refurbishing the upper parts) after service of its Section 25 Notice.
The landlord’s amended plans encroached on a small part of the ground floor that was occupied by Sainsbury’s. On advice, Sainsbury’s vacated this area shortly before trial – ensuring it no longer remained part of the holding – to try and prevent the landlord from successfully arguing it had an intention to carry out works to the holding and therefore frustrate the ground ‘f’ opposition.
The landlord’s counter argument was to rely on section 32(2) of the LTA – requiring a tenant to take a new lease of the entire property as demised by the current lease.
The court ruled in favour of Sainsbury’s and found that (for the purposes of ground ‘f’ opposition) the holding was strictly limited to the part(s) of the property it occupied for the purpose of its business.
Requisite Intention
In addition, the landlord also failed to oppose Sainsbury’s request for a new lease as the court found it did not possess a ‘firm and settled intention’ to carry out the works – even if Sainsbury’s gave up possession.
Whilst the landlord provided plans and evidence of its proposed works,
- little progress had been made;
- there were other issues that made the plans appear unviable; and
- its expert was found to be unreliable.
Commercial Landlord/Tenant Impact
This case highlights some of the strategies tenants can deploy where a landlord has sought to rely on ground ‘f’ opposition.
For example, a tenant – if feasible – could, prior to trial, limit its occupation to a part of the holding that is not impacted by the landlord’s proposed works and then move back into the remainder of the property once the landlord had undertaken its work and before the second stage trial (to determine the terms of the renewal lease).
It is important that both landlords and tenants are aware of the novel approach in this case. Further, this case serves as a stark reminder that planning permission, work proposals and funding will not, in themselves, be sufficient to demonstrate the requisite firm and settled intention. A landlord must be able to demonstrate that:
- works can be undertaken as proposed;
- it is actively proceeding towards commencing them;
- it is not procrastinating until after the trial of the preliminary issue to decide its ground of opposition; and
- it requires possession of the holding to undertake its works, which cannot be carried out whilst the tenant remains in occupation.
To discuss any of the points raised in this article, please contact Daniel Blake or fill in the form below.
Read More
How do I Check my Immigration Status With the Home Office is Correct?
Ensuring your immigration status is accurate is crucial in ensuring you have the right to work, own or rent property, and access services in the UK. It is imperative to be aware of the process for checking your immigration status.
If you believe the Home Office holds inaccurate data about your immigration status, you have resources available. You can request that the Home Office verify your status. I’d like to let you know that you should expect to receive a response to your question within seven working days.
To check your status you will need to complete an enquiry form from the Home Office Website, and provide the relevant documentation. You will then be required to send the relevant evidence via email to UKVI.IC@homeoffice.gov.uk or by post.
Providing Evidence
Providing evidence which you believe demonstrates your immigration status can expedite the process. Letters conferring your status, reference numbers and copies of BRP cards are useful to provide.
In addition, it is useful to possess digital proof your status. Use of the employer checking service can also be helpful to check your immigration status.
It is important to check your status is accurate, the need for this is heightened when you are between periods of leave particularly when you hold 3C status or you are at risk of receiving a curtailment letter. It is also important to keep the Home Office up to date as to your residential address to mitigate the risk of receiving important information relating to your status.
If you are unsure about your immigration status or believe the Home Office hold incorrect information, our team are highly experienced at resolving these matters with the Home Office.
If you or your connections require legal advice, please contact Jayesh Jethwa or fill out our enquiry form below.