Real estate disputes

Ministry of Defence landmark litigation

Forsters supported The Ministry of Defence (MOD) and Annington Homes to reach a major deal, bringing the Armed Forces housing estate back into public ownership.  MOD will re-acquire c36,000 houses from Annington Homes for a total purchase price of £5.9945bn, as well as unwinding the complex and costly set of contractual arrangements between the parties which has governed their relationship since 1996.

Learn more.

Annington Properties Limited v Secretary of State for Defence

We acted for the Ministry of Defence in the seminal litigation brought by Annington Homes concerning the MOD’s right to enfranchise homes within its military service family accommodation portfolio. The case involved various untested principles of enfranchisement and attracted significant media interest, as the portfolio is estimated to be worth £10 billion. The case, involving over a dozen King’s Counsel across both sides, was named as one of the Lawyer’s Top 20 cases of 2023, and again in 2024. MOD was entirely successful at first instance in defending both Annington’s judicial review claim, and its claim to oppose the validity of MOD’s test enfranchisement cases. The case is now progressing to the Court of Appeal, with Forsters leading on all property law issues.

Central London development

We advised a developer in relation to a major Central London development encompassing parts of Oxford Street and Soho Square. Our work included strategic advice in respect of various rights of way/easement issues over the site, rights to light, and vacant possession strategy. This was a complex site, in a high-profile location, with various types of tenants including telecoms operators, 1954 Act tenants, residential tenants, and multiple licensees.

Berkeley Homes

We successfully acted for Berkeley Homes in a landmark case concerning recoverability of residential service charges. The case centred on whether it was reasonable for a landlord to choose not to employ site managing staff directly, thus passing on an additional VAT charge to tenants. The issue had important consequences for landlords in the affordability of providing services to managed flats. The First Tier Tribunal held that the landlord had indeed been reasonable to choose to structure staff costs in the way that it had, which provided very welcome clarity to landlords across the country. The trial ran for five weeks and required extensive expert evidence. We co-ordinated the litigation on behalf 7 co-defendants against over 600 leaseholders and continue to act on satellite issues arising.

Fearn v Tate Gallery

We successfully acted for the various flat owners living adjacent to the Tate Gallery’s new Blavatnik wing, who were suffering excessive and intrusive nuisance as a result of visitors to the Tate’s new viewing platform overlooking our clients’ flats. The case progressed to the Supreme Court and established important new principles for the law of nuisance, and was widely reported in the mainstream press. Acting on behalf of multiple litigants required a streamlined approach to managing the litigation.

Aldford House, London

We acted for the leaseholders of a large building in Park Lane known as Aldford House, in relation to a complex collective enfranchisement claim for the freehold. The right to make the claim was disputed by the freeholder Grosvenor Estate and the head landlord on various grounds. The Court of Appeal determined that the collective claim was valid, in an important decision on the construction of the 1993 Act and the definition of a “Flat”, which also provided key guidance on the interaction between service charges under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and management orders under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. We also act for the same leaseholders in a complex service charge dispute circa £1.5 million against the head landlord.