Service pages: real estate disputes

Timing is everything for possession on the basis of redevelopment

Terraced houses in brick stand in a row, featuring black doors and white-framed windows. A street lamp with hanging flowers sits in front, and a sign reads "Shouldham Street W1".
Salisbury, Wiltshire, UK - Aug 29 2025: The Market Place in central Salisbury showing Ox Row. People sit outside local pubs enjoying a drink in the evening sunshine.

Pridewell Properties (London) Limited v Spirit Pub Company (Managed) Limited

The High Court handed down a decision which clarifies what a landlord must prove in order to satisfy its intention to redevelop under ground (f) of s.30(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act (“1954 Act”), especially in relation to the timing of the redevelopment. 

Background

In 2025 Spirit Pub Company (Managed) Limited successfully prevented its landlord (Pridewell Properties (London) Limited) from using ground (f) of the 1954 Act (“ground (f)“) to terminate its lease on the basis of redevelopment works.

The High Court (on appeal) has upheld part of the County Court’s decision and maintained that the landlord is prevented from obtaining possession.  However, of most interest is how the High Court’s judgment dealt with the timing of the works and whether the landlord was in a position to commence works “on the determination of the current tenancy” in order to satisfy the ground (f) test.  

Original decision

The County Court judge was satisfied that the proposed works were substantial enough to use ground (f). However, the landlord failed to evidence that it had a real prospect of obtaining the necessary funding for the development. The landlord’s proposed lender had indicated it would require directors/shareholders to provide guarantees. No evidence was provided to the court of the personal finances of those parties to enable the court to conclude that satisfactory guarantees would be provided. 

There were a number of other hurdles the landlord needed to overcome in order to carry out a redevelopment, but the court concluded the landlord had a real prospect of dealing with them.

Unusually, the landlord had not applied for planning permission by the point of trial. The landlord needed to obtain access to the property to carry out certain surveys before submitting a planning application but did not have sufficient rights in the lease to obtain access. The court originally found that the landlord had a real prospect of overcoming the other issues it was facing and, other than the issue of funding, would be in a position to carry out the works “on the determination of the current tenancy” (which is the statutory test set out in ground (f)). That is despite not being in a position to commence works until 10–14 months after obtaining possession because it would take that long to obtain planning permission. The judge concluded that was within a reasonable time of the lease terminating, given circumstances where the landlord could not obtain access for surveys any earlier.

Appeal

Both parties appealed the judge’s decision.

Funding 

The landlord’s appeal failed. The High Court concluded that the lender had indicated it would require security, and given that no evidence was provided that a satisfactory guarantee would be provided, the landlord could not show a real prospect of obtaining the necessary funding for the development. The landlord could not therefore show it had the necessary intention required under the 1954 Act to obtain possession on ground (f).

While the landlord’s appeal failed, the appeal judge went on to consider the tenant’s grounds of appeal (essentially challenging the original judge’s findings that the landlord had a real prospect of overcoming the other outstanding issues and that it would commence the works on determination of the lease).

Timing of the development

Of most interest is the judge’s decision regarding the timing of the redevelopment. The judge overturned the County Court’s decision and clarified that the relevant question is whether, given a delay in starting the works, a landlord could be said to intend to carry out the works on the termination of the lease, i.e. by a reasonable time after termination of the lease, not at any long-delayed time. What is a reasonable time/not any long-delayed time is not assessed on whether the delay is reasonable in the circumstances (here, the issue of obtaining access for surveys before applying for planning permission). The court will need to assess on a case-by-case basis what period of time could be added onto the date on which the landlord obtains possession without the works ceasing to be classified as being carried out on the termination date. That will vary depending on the nature of the development, for instance large sites are likely to take longer to mobilise contractors and carry out other preliminary steps.

Key outcomes 

  • Those acquiring or assembling development sites need to ensure sufficient access rights. The landlord in this case was hampered as it was unable to access the property. This meant it could not obtain surveys or make a planning application and, therefore, could not show it would commence works on the determination of the lease. If a landlord is facing this issue, it may need to consider following an unopposed lease renewal process with a view to obtaining a redevelopment break in the new lease, with sufficient access rights for the landlord in order to pave the way for future redevelopment.
  • A lease terminates 3 months and 21 days after the conclusion of a court process. If a landlord needs a relatively short period after that before commencing works, it will still meet the ground (f) test. What is a short period will depend on the specific development, but  is likely to include the time needed to secure and clear the property and mobilise contractors and take preliminary steps. Those carrying out large developments in urban areas are likely to be afforded longer than small developments at easily accessed sites.
  • For multi-let development sites it is important to plan ahead and ensure that the landlord can obtain possession of the other areas of the development site, at very similar times.
  • A landlord needs to take great care to flesh out the evidence behind its intention to redevelop, and ensure that it clearly shows how any unresolved issues will be dealt with.

Building Liability Orders before trial: TCC raises the stakes in Crest v Ardmore

featured image

 

In Crest Nicholson Regeneration Limited v Ardmore Construction Limited [2026] EWHC 789, the TCC handed down one of the most important Building Safety Act decisions to date, granting two Building Liability Orders (BLOs) against companies associated with an insolvent contractor.

What happened?

Crest Nicholson Regeneration Limited (Crest) engaged Ardmore Construction Limited (ACL) to design and build a residential development in Portsmouth. Post‑Grenfell investigations identified serious fire safety defects in the external wall system. Crest referred the dispute to adjudication. The adjudicator held that the defects amounted to breaches of the Building Regulations and the Defective Premises Act 1972 and awarded Crest £14.9m. ACL entered administration the day before the decision was made and ultimately did not pay.

The application

Crest applied for:

  • an anticipatory BLO, making ACL’s associated companies jointly and severally liable for any liability later established against ACL; and
  • an adjudication BLO, making those associates liable for the unpaid adjudicator’s award.

The decision

The Court granted both BLOs, holding that:

  • BLOs can be made before trial, even where liability is disputed;
  • An adjudicator’s decision can be a “relevant liability” under the Building Safety Act;
  • ACL’s insolvency, group restructuring to ring‑fence liabilities, and the associates’ long‑standing knowledge of the claims all pointed strongly towards it being just and equitable to make the orders; and
  • The Court had a “high degree of confidence” that ACL would ultimately be found liable for the defects. 

Why this matters?

  • Associated companies can face early exposure, even before liability is finally determined.
  • Corporate restructuring and insolvency will not prevent liability being passed up to the group.

Grenfell Tower Inquiry: update on recommendations

Terraced houses in brick stand in a row, featuring black doors and white-framed windows. A street lamp with hanging flowers sits in front, and a sign reads "Shouldham Street W1".
London, England - June 15, 2023: A train passes in North Kensington with the Forever in our hearts support banner visible on the Grenfell tower in the background

In September 2024, the Grenfell Tower Inquiry published its final report which made 58 recommendations based on its findings and in our original article we looked at some of the key recommendations affecting the construction industry. We now take a look at the Government’s response to two of those recommendations: 

  • to review the definition of Higher-Risk Buildings; and
  • to convene an advisory panel to produce an authoritative statement on the knowledge and skills to be expected of a competent fire engineer. 

Review of the definition of Higher-Risk Buildings

The concept of a Higher-Risk Building (“HRB”) was introduced by the Building Safety Act 2022 (“BSA”) which contains onerous obligations governing the design, construction and occupation of HRBs. 

In England, the current definition of an HRB is a building which: 

  • is at least 18 metres in height, or has at least 7 storeys;
  • contains at least 2 residential units; and
  • does not comprise entirely of a secure residential institution, a hotel, or military barracks, and does not contain military accommodation. 

For Part 3 of the BSA (design, construction, and building work to existing higher-risk buildings), hospitals and care homes are HRBs, but, under Part 4 (in-occupation duties), they are not. 

As part of the review of this definition, the Government directed the Building Safety Regulator (“the Regulator”) to carry out a review of the key factors in the HRB regime and their implications. Following consideration of the available evidence, the conclusion published in December 2025 was that the original definition “still seems focused on the appropriate categories of buildings”, and that an increase to the scope of the HRB regime at this time would not be right. It was also noted that the definition of HRB, and the associated regime, has only been in operation since April 2024 and so it is still early to say whether it needs to be changed, albeit it is already having a positive impact on buildings within its scope.

Despite this, the Government and the Regulator acknowledged the importance of work to protect vulnerable residents as well as the evolving risks of the built environment and agreed that the Regulator will operate a process for ongoing risk-based review of the definition. 

The conclusion is in quite stark contrast to the Inquiry’s finding that defining an HRB by reference to height is unsatisfactory and arbitrary, with the nature of its use and the presence of vulnerable people being more relevant than height. The material tension between the ideal approach, and an approach that is workable in practice, is manifest in this result, and it seems the Government has fallen on the side of practicality so as not to further stifle development in the UK, particularly in the residential sector. 

Authoritative statement 

In response to this recommendation, the Government appointed a panel comprised of eight of the foremost experts, which produced the authoritative statement in December 2025. 

The panel set down the following definition for a fire engineer:

“Fire engineers are professionals who develop and deliver engineering solutions that protect people and mitigate harm to the built and natural environment in the event of fire.” 

The statement observed that there is no single recognised pathway to becoming a fire engineer, which leads to variation in the qualifications and skills of those operating as fire engineers. Further, ethical standards are inconsistently defined and monitored, and engineering principles are not always effectively applied, which leads to issues with delivery and poor confidence in the profession.

The statement confirms the panel’s support for the Government’s intention to regulate both the title and function of fire engineers and required legal restrictions on the use of the title of fire engineer. Further, statutory regulation should define the functions and activities that can be performed only by an individual who is registered and has met specific requirements. The preparation of the fire strategy should be a protected function, as that is the fundamental core of a fire engineer’s work. In the absence of an existing authoritative definition of what a fire safety strategy is, the statement sets out the panel’s view on what a fire safety strategy should include, and notes that “In delivering the fire safety strategy, the role of the fire engineer is fundamentally one of integration. The fire engineer acts as the link between multiple disciplines”.

The Government has achieved a robust delivery of this recommendation, with the panel’s statement and the Government’s intentions being aligned, which will hopefully motivate the Government. The stumbling block will be the timeline for the Government to turn intention into reality, and whether the practical reality of the huge demand for fire engineers will lead to the Government diverging from the panel’s statement and its current intention.