Liam Spender

The beneficial owner of the building is the ARC Time Freehold Income Authorised Fund. Freehold Managers (Nominees) is a trustee holding on bare trust because NatWest Trustee & Depositary Services is the fund’s Depositary for real assets.

Losing their £5m judicial review against the leasehold reforms threatens freeholders' long era of primacy. So, what's next? - Leasehold Knowledge Partnership Parasitical, wealth-eroding freehold landlordism has suffered a devastating blow, but the appeals may keep coming if landlords reckon delay works in their favour By Liam Spender Liam Spender is a trus...

Parasitical, wealth-eroding freehold landlordism has suffered a devastating blow, but the appeals may keep coming if landlords reckon delay works in their favour
By @liamspender.bsky.social

NLC and LKP will not give up fighting 💪

#LeaseholdScandal

www.leaseholdknowledge.com/losing-their...

A freeholder appeal is inevitable. A lot to digest in the 167 pages.

Government wins judicial review brought against Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024: caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/admin/202…

Court finds no violation of right to private property and government struck a fair balance between freeholder and leaseholder interests.

Flat owners plan legal claim over 'secret' insurance charges to freeholders Property firms allegedly charged leaseholders commission for arranging buildings insurance without telling them.

BBC News - Flat owners planning legal claim over 'secret' insurance charges

Two of the four freeholders are currently in the High Court claiming their human rights are being infringed

@liamspender.bsky.social @matthewpennycookmp.bsky.social

www.bbc.com/news/article...

Flat owners plan legal claim over 'secret' insurance charges to freeholders Property firms allegedly charged leaseholders commission for arranging buildings insurance without telling them.

Flat owners planning legal claim over 'secret' insurance charges www.bbc.com/news/article...

Today isn’t a surprising or disappointing result. Everything that matters is yet to be decided.

And whatever happens in July probably won't be the last word on this. Whoever loses will probably seek permission to appeal. This will most likely go on for some time.

We were not expecting any further movement on the measures being challenged until consultations opened in the summer in any event.

The trial therefore poses no reason to delay those consultations.

Generally the courts defer to the government and Parliament, particularly where challenges are made to Acts of Parliament.

Freeholders have challenged every attempt made since 1967 to reform leasehold as an infringement of their human rights. They have lost every time.

Annington dropped out of these judicial review proceedings, accepting a buy out rather than roll the dice on continuing with litigation.

That may perhaps be a valuable insight as to how the freeholders really view their chances in this case.

One such example is that the 8th freeholder in this case -- Annington -- in 2023 lost a judicial review attempting to stop the government from acquiring the freeholds to the Married Quarters Estate.

Annington got permission but lost on every point at trial.

The government will have the opportunity to answer the bottom feeders with their own expert evidence and their own justification for enacting the changes.

Only around half of judicial reviews that get permission to proceed actually succeed at trial.

The "rights" in question have always been subject to statute and statutes can change.

Ditto the abolition of marriage value. Again, this is a right given to freeholders in 1993 with an arbitrary cut-off of 80 years, primarily to stop hereditary peers (who then sat in the House of Lords) from blocking the law.

And given the legal argument is over a valuation system created by statute in 1993, it is hard to see why changing the rules to move to fixed variables for calculating the cost of lease extension instead of variables made up by freeholders' pet surveyors is a deprivation of private property.

And the part about requiring proof is important. At the trial in July it will be up to the bottom feeders, for the first time, to prove their points about billions in damages.

It is easy to throw around large numbers but much harder to prove them in a trial.

This is entirely unsurprising.

Bottom-feeding freeholders have emphasised (without yet being required to prove) that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act is causing them (or will cause them) billions in loss.

This does not mean the bottom feeders "win" or that their arguments are "good".

All it means is that the judge was persuaded that they had a case good enough to go to trial.

Trial is due in July 2025.

#leaseholdreform

7 freeholders have been given permission to bring a judicial review against the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024.

A1P1 applies to both legal and natural persons, so companies can claim that right too.

8/8 Equally the High Court could refuse permission because the government has yet to lay out all of the detail of the provisions the freeholders are challenging.

We await the result with interest.

7/8 I would not be surprised if permission is granted today, but that would not mean the case is bound to succeed later.

Annington got permission to bring a judicial review against the government that it then went on to lose (badly) at trial.

6/8 It is worth noting that today is not a trial of the bottom feeders' case. It is a hearing to decide whether they can argue their case at a later trial.

Most judicial reviews fail at this stage. Only about half of those that proceed to trial succeed.

5/8 The 7 left standing include Long Harbour, Wallace Partnership Trust, the ARC Time Freehold Income Fund, Cadogan Estate, Grosvenor Estate, Portal Trust and John Lyon's Charity.

And I am sure most of their leaseholders would describe them as worthy paragons of virtue.

4/8 The number of participating bottom feeders / freeholders has reduced from 8 to 7. Annington dropped out at the end of 2024 having agreed to sell the Ministry of Defence Married Quarters Estate back to the taxpayer:

annington.co.uk/media/punbg1...

3/8 The bottom feeders / freeholders are seeking a declaration of incompatibility because they say the Act infringes their private property rights and is contrary to Article 1, Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

2/8 The hearing begins at 10.30 in Court 1 of the Royal Courts of Justice. There is, unfortunately, no live stream but we can expect a written decision in due course.

1/8 #leaseholdreform

Bottom feeders (although they identify as professional freeholders) assemble at the High Court today for a 2 day permission hearing to decide whether they can proceed with a judicial review challenging the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act.

Written statements - Written questions, answers and statements - UK Parliament Information from UK Parliament on written questions & answers, written statements and daily reports.

The government promises further progress on all that later this year, as per the 21 November statement:

questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-stat...