Forsters team supports Ministry of Defence in settlement of landmark litigation, bringing Armed Forces housing back into public ownership
17 December 2024
News
The Ministry of Defence (MOD) and Annington Homes have today announced that they have reached a major deal to bring 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.
The transaction marks the culmination of landmark litigation between the parties concerning the scope of MOD’s enfranchisement rights. Forsters has advised MOD in relation to the enfranchisement and subsequent litigation since 2020 and the firm was also selected to handle the transactional elements of the deal, which is one of the largest property transactions in UK history. The entire Forsters team has worked immensely hard on behalf of MOD, alongside Slaughter and May who advised on the public law aspects of the litigation, to help bring matters to a successful conclusion.
The Forsters team comprised Senior Partner Natasha Rees, Real Estate Disputes Partner Julia Tobbell and Commercial Real Estate Partner Ben Brayford. They were supported by Senior Associate James Carpenter (Real Estate Disputes), Counsel Andrew McEwan, Senior Associates Alexandra Burnaby and Alex Harrison and Paralegal Kelly Pryor (Commercial Real Estate).
Ben Barrison shares his thoughts on potential reforms to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954
21 November 2024
News
Partner and Head of Real Estate Disputes, Ben Barrison, shared his thoughts with CoStar, Property Week, and BE News, on The Law Commission launching a consultation on potential reforms to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.
The overall consultation focuses on Part 2 of the Act, dealing with ‘security of tenure’ for business tenancies. Discussion points focus on the security of tenure model, alternatives to this, and how this reflects the rise of online retail and sustainability needs. This follows 70 years on from the introduction of the Act, and 20 years since the last review.
‘Of the four options they are considering, a modernised contracting-out regime, to reflect the 20 years of tech advancement since it was last updated, would be an important first step and this would retain the balance the Act brings to commercial landlord and tenant relationships. Apart from security of tenure, there is a great deal of additional work for the Law Commission to do in terms of the other mechanics of the 1954 Act to deliver a modern regime for determining the lease terms and opposing renewal/termination cases. The 1954 Act is currently too slow and cumbersome for the digital age, but the overarching intent remains good.’
Help! How do I stop my neighbour letting out their property on Airbnb?
3 October 2024
News
In the current cost of living crisis, with sky-high property prices, and incoming rental law reform, an increasing number of leaseholders and homeowners are turning to short-term letting agencies such as Airbnb to generate extra income from their property. While these short-term lettings might seem like a quick and easy way to generate income for the occupier, they can be disturbing to those living nearby and can have legal ramifications. So, can you stop your neighbour from letting out their property on a short-term basis?
Failure to obtain planning permission
Your neighbour may require planning permission to let the property on a short-term basis. In London, you must obtain planning permission if you are intending to let your property out for over 90 days a year (see Sections 25 and 25A of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1973). You can check the local authority’s planning portal to see whether your neighbour has obtained the relevant permissions. If planning permission has not been obtained, the local authority may be willing to take enforcement action to restrain the unauthorised use.
Breach of the lease
If your neighbour holds their property pursuant to a long lease, the lease might require the property to be used only as a private residence: to let the property on a short-term basis is likely to be a breach of this provision. The lease may also prohibit the letting of the property on a short-term basis without consent from the landlord and/or without appropriate planning consent. The use of the property as a short-term letting may also invalidate the building’s insurance and be contrary to the terms of the leaseholder’s mortgage. If any of these apply, you may be able to ask your landlord to take steps to force your neighbour to comply with the terms of their lease.
Private or statutory nuisance
The use as a short-term letting may constitute either a private or statutory nuisance, or both. In the first instance, you may wish to alert the local authority of the actions of your neighbour, as they may be able to take action against the neighbour if their actions amount to a statutory nuisance, which can include things like noise and light from a premises or an accumulation of waste. The local authority may serve an abatement notice to restrain the nuisance. Alternatively, you could bring civil proceedings for an injunction compelling your neighbour to stop any private nuisance. These proceedings are expensive but the threat of proceedings and your neighbour’s liability for costs could be sufficient to stop your neighbour’s actions.
If you require advice in relation to any of these issues, please contact our real estate disputes team.
Fearn v Tate named as top property case of 2023 by EG
22 December 2023
News
In their countdown of top 10 property law cases of 2023 EG awarded the Christmas number 1 spot to Fearn v Tate, calling it one of the most high-profile cases of the century.
Natasha Rees, Senior Partner at Forsters, was the lead lawyer advising the leaseholders, with Sarah Heatley, working with Tom Weekes KC and Richard Moules of Landmark Chambers.
Read more about the case, and Forsters’ involvement here and here.
Listen to the EG Property Podcast – top 10 property law cases of 2023 here.
Fearn and Others v The Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery
18 October 2023
News
The Supreme Court found in favour of five Neo Bankside residents earlier this year, holding that the viewing gallery at the Blavatnik Building at Tate Modern had created a nuisance by interfering with living conditions at their flats at Neo Bankside. The proceedings were remitted to the original trial judge in the High Court, Sir Anthony Mann, to determine the appropriate remedy.
Last month, having been asked to elect by the Court, the Tate chose not to argue that the Court should award damages instead of an injunction. The Tate has now agreed to a final order disposing of the proceedings which puts an end to the nuisance.
Tate Modern has undertaken not to operate Level 10 of the Blavatnik Building in such way that would enable visitors to engage in intrusive viewing or photography of neighbouring flats in the manner that was held by the Supreme Court in February to be a nuisance.
Currently, the Tate prevents that happening by preventing public access to the parts of the viewing gallery nearest to the flats of the five residents.
Natasha Rees, Senior Partner of law firm Forsters, which represented the five Neo Bankside residents, comments, “An award of damages was never our clients’ aim and they are grateful for the Tate’s recent willingness, instead, to agree that the viewing platform will not be operated in a way which causes nuisance. They are pleased that this long-running dispute has been concluded.”
Forsters Property Litigation and Private Client teams recognised at the British Legal Awards 2023
24 August 2023
News
Forsters have been shortlisted for two awards at the 14th annual British Legal Awards 2023:
Litigation, Arbitration and Dispute Resolution Team of the Year
Private Client Team of the Year
The shortlistings recognise the achievement of the Property Litigation team in relation to the Supreme Court appeal concerning the Tate Gallery, and our Private Client team’s extensive work on a multi-generational matter for an international ultra-high net worth family.
Forsters is proud to have received nominations at the British Legal Awards for five consecutive years. The awards represent the top advisors and firms within the UK’s legal community.
The full shortlist can be viewed here. The winners will be announced at the ceremony on Wednesday 29 November.
Government action on short-term holiday lets – what could this mean?
11 July 2023
News
The Government has responded to mounting pressure to address the adverse impact of short-term rentals.
Over the years the significant increase in short-term lets and second homes have seen local authorities complaining about anti-social behaviour from “party” lets, local residents in holiday hot spots being priced out of the local housing market and hotel operators struggling in an already difficult market. The counter argument is that short-term rentals play an important role in the country’s tourism economy.
Last year the Government issued a call for evidence on how the sector could be further regulated. Out of the 4,000 responses, 60% indicated support for further regulation and control and 42% wanted a light touch, low-cost licencing scheme.
In response the Government is introducing, through the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill, a statutory licensing scheme for all visitor accommodation providers. The scheme will be brought forward through regulations which can set out any conditions that must be satisfied for a short-term rental property to be registered and the circumstances in which the registration can be revoked. As with much of the Government’s current legislation agenda, the devil will be in the detail of the regulations.
Alongside the registration scheme, the Government has consulted on the introduction of a new use class C5 for short term lets. There will be permitted development rights to change from standard residential C3 use class to the new C5 use class. However local planning authorities will be able to apply for Article 4 Directions to remove those permitted development rights, thereby giving them control over the number of new short-term lets in their administrative area. The Secretary of State can direct a local planning authority to cancel or modify an Article 4 Direction and, anticipating a large number of applications for the Directions will be made, it will be interesting to see how many are made and where, and whether the Secretary of State intervenes.
It remains to be seen how effective the registration scheme and the introduction of the new C5 use class will be in reducing the adverse impact of short-term rentals. In practice, it is unlikely to significantly reduce the current number of short-term rentals meaning the adverse impacts may continue to be suffered. There is also the concern that already stretched local authorities will not have the resources to properly enforce the registration scheme or unlawful changes of use to short-term lets.
Renters’ Reform Bill may introduce new risks for tenants – Anna Mullins comments
22 May 2023
Views
Property Litigation Partner, Anna Mullins, has been quoted in Property Week and Property Reporter on the long-awaited Renters’ Reform Bill entering Parliament, and the new risks it may pose for both landlords and tenants.
Experts have warned that the Bill, published on 17 May 2023, could make it more difficult for low-income renters to secure tenancies since private landlords could be newly motivated to sell their properties.
Mullins commented: “The removal of section 21 no-fault evictions will provide greater security for tenants in the private rented sector. However, it may also drive landlords out of the market and exacerbate the housing crisis, ultimately driving rents up and making it harder for tenants to find affordable rental properties.
“Even if new grounds for possession are introduced or the current grounds are strengthened as proposed, there is bound to be litigation around the circumstances in which problematic tenants can be evicted.
“For example, the proposed wording for the expanded antisocial behaviour ground will extend to “any behaviour ‘capable’ of causing nuisance or annoyance.”
This is clearly open to interpretation and such uncertainty could be detrimental for both landlords and tenants. Similarly, what will constitute an “unreasonable” refusal for a tenant to keep a pet?“These will be issues left for the courts to decide. For landlords, the procedure for obtaining possession is already time-consuming and costly, with many County Courts understaffed and ill-equipped to deal with the volume of straightforward possession claims.”
These comments were originally published on 17 May and can be read here (behind the Property Week paywall) and here in full in Property Reporter.
She provides insight into her career so far, as well as offers thoughts on Forsters’ recent success in acting for the MoD in defence of claims made my Annington Homes.
What are your thoughts on the case?
“This case was about whether the Government could be entitled to benefit from legislation which gives long leasehold owners the right to purchase the freehold of their homes (known as enfranchisement).
The MoD had sold off a large portfolio of military family homes to Annington Homes, a private equity funded vehicle, in 1996, and simultaneously taken a 200-year leaseback. At the time of the deal, enfranchisement rights did not apply to MoD but there had been subsequent changes in the legislation expanding the definition of a ‘qualifying tenant’.
The MoD was keen to explore whether enfranchisement might bring better value for money for the taxpayer than the current lease arrangement, and so brought a handful of test claims to gain some clarity on the legal position. However, as the legislation was not written with government tenants in mind, there were numerous factual and legal complexities in issue, many of which had never been decided before.
Much turned on whether the MoD had a business tenancy, which would have disqualified it from enfranchisement, or whether the legislation could apply to a Crown interest. Annington also sought to attack the claims on judicial review grounds, arguing that the MoD had acted with an improper purpose. We were delighted to win on all grounds.”
How has it been dealing with the media?
“As we were part of a much wider legal team (including Slaughter and May, MoD Legal Advisers and Government Legal Department, plus a large Counsel team), we took a coordinated approach to everything in the litigation. MoD’s very capable communications team has taken the lead in handling media enquiries.”
Why did you become a lawyer?
“My family used to joke that I was so argumentative I ought to become a lawyer. This was around the same time that Ally McBeal so I think the combination of the two probably sowed the seed.”
What has been your career high?
“Getting a job on qualification in the property litigation team at Herbert Smith Freehills; initially they had not posted a vacancy, so I chose transactional real estate instead, but then a space opened up at the last minute. I am a litigator at heart, so I was very lucky to get on the right path.”
What has been your career low?
“In my final seat, whilst working on an exhausting deal that had involved multiple 5am finishes, I had an operation to remove an infected wisdom tooth. When I came round from the general anaesthetic, I realised I had only been under for an hour. I was apparently inconsolable not to have caught up on more sleep!”
This article was originally published in the Law Society Gazette on 19 May 2023 and can also be read here (Page 11).
Forsters advises Ministry of Defence in successful defence of claims by Annington Homes
15 May 2023
News
Forsters is delighted to have acted for the Ministry of Defence in successfully defending the claims brought by Annington Homes regarding military service family accommodation.
The High Court has found that the Ministry of Defence does benefit from a right to enfranchise; the Ministry of Defence will now consider whether enfranchisement might achieve better value for money for the taxpayer. The case involved complex aspects of the law of enfranchisement, some of which had never been decided before.
The team at Forsters was led by Senior Partner, Natasha Rees, and Partner, Julia Tobbell. Natasha Rees is a property litigator with expertise in the field of enfranchisement, whilst Julia has significant experience in managing high-profile, high-value property litigation. They received superb support from Associates James Carpenter and Harvey Small.
The Forsters team worked closely with Slaughter and May, as well as Ministry of Defence Legal Advisers, who advised the Ministry of Defence in respect of public law issues.
On 1 February 2023 the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in the ongoing nuisance claim between the residents of Neo Bankside and the Tate Gallery relating to the public viewing gallery situated in the Blavatnik Building at the Tate Modern.
Lord Leggatt, who gave the leading Judgment (with which Lord Reed and Lord Lloyd-Jones agreed) decided that the Tate’s use of the viewing gallery does give rise to liability to the residents under common law nuisance and that the case should be remitted to the High Court to determine the appropriate remedy. The Judgment, which runs to 168 pages re-asserts the principles of the law of nuisance and considers its application to the facts and the decisions of the Courts below.
Background
The viewing gallery is situated on the 10th floor of the Blavatnik Building and affords a 360-degree panoramic view of London to visitors of the Tate Gallery at no cost. Around 5 and ½ million people visit the Tate Gallery each year and of those, it was estimated that around 500,000-600,000 visit the viewing gallery with a limit of around 300 on the gallery at any time. The Claimants all own flats that are situated in a development opposite known as Neo Bankside. The interior of the flats can be viewed easily from the south side and south western corner of the viewing gallery.
The Courts below
The Judge at first instance found on the facts that a significant number of visitors displayed an interest in the interior of the flats either by peering, photographing, waving or using binoculars to view. He considered this to be a material intrusion into the privacy of their living accommodation using “privacy” in its every day sense. Despite stating that such intrusive viewing could, in principle, give rise to a claim in nuisance he concluded that the intrusion experienced in this case did not amount to a nuisance for two reasons. Firstly, the claimants had properties with glass walls and secondly, because they had failed to take remedial measures to protect their privacy.
The Court of Appeal found that this reasoning involved material errors of law and that, had the principles of nuisance been applied correctly, the residents’ claim should succeed. Nevertheless, they then went on to dismiss the appeal. Their reason was that overlooking, no matter how oppressive, cannot in law count as a nuisance.
Supreme Court Decision
Lord Leggatt considered that whilst the Court of Appeal was right to hold that the first instance Judge incorrectly applied the law, it was wrong to decide that the law of nuisance does not cover a case of this kind, which he considered to be a straight forward case of nuisance. The notion that visual intrusion cannot constitute a nuisance is not supported by precedent and indeed the relevant authorities positively support the opposite conclusion. He concluded that in applying the well settled legal tests, the claim ought to succeed. He suspected that what lay behind the rejection of the claim by the Courts below was “a reluctance to decide that the property rights of a few wealthy property owners should prevent the general public from enjoying an unrestricted view of London and a major national museum from providing public access to such a view.”
This decision is a robust re-assertion of the protection afforded by the common law to privacy in the home. As a result, there was no need to extend the common law to accommodate the right to privacy guaranteed by Article 8 of the ECHR.
Natasha Rees, Senior Partner and lead lawyer advising the Claimants, said “Our clients are both pleased and relieved that nearly six years after they began their claim the Supreme Court has now found in their favour. Lord Leggatt, giving the majority judgment, recognised how oppressive it can be to live “under constant observation from the Tate’s viewing gallery for much of the day, every day of the week…much like being on display in a zoo.” Our clients now look forward to working with the Tate as valued neighbours to find a practical solution which protects all of their interests.”
Instruction by MoD listed in The Lawyer’s Top 20 Cases of 2023
19 January 2023
News
Our Property Litigation team is pleased to note that its instruction by the Secretary of State for Defence in regard to ‘R (Annington Property & others) v Secretary of State for Defence’ has been included in The Lawyer’s ‘Top 20 Cases of 2023’.
Senior Partner, Natasha Rees, and Property Litigation Partner, Julia Tobbell, are leading on this high profile and ground-breaking case.
The Lawyer describes the case as one of the most prominent judicial reviews of 2023. It concerns the MoD’s proposed repurchasing of homes from Annington Homes using enfranchisement legislation. Forsters are advising on the property law aspects of the proceedings.
The Lawyer has reported on this case as part of its annual report, ‘The Top Cases of 2023’. A copy of the report can be purchased here.
On 3 November 2022, The Court of Appeal published its decision in O G Thomas Amaethyddiath v Turner & Ors [2022] EWCA Civ 1446 which concerned a narrowing of the scope of the Mannai Principle, a rule that can be relied upon in certain circumstances to save a defective notice.
The decision highlights the potential pitfalls in relation to the service of notices and emphasises the importance of taking proper legal advice when serving notices to ensure compliance with service requirements.
Mannai Principle
Parties serving notices must adhere to any contractual and/or statutory requirements that govern the service of the notice. However, if a party has failed to comply with these requirements, there are circumstances in which they may be able to rely upon the Mannai principle established in Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Life Assurance Co Ltd [1997] UKHL 19.
The Mannai principle may be relied upon to save a defective notice if the reasonable recipient “would not have been perplexed in any way by the minor error”.
This doctrine was tested in Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council v Total Fitness UK Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1513 and a two-stage test for the applicability of the Mannai Principle was established as follows:
Consider what the notice says on its true construction.
Compare the notice to the relevant requirements for that notice to establish whether the notice meets the requirements.
O G Thomas Amaethyddiath v Turner & Ors [2022] EWCA Civ 1446
The facts of the case were that:
Mr Thomas had a tenancy of an agricultural holding which he had assigned to a company without his landlord knowing.
He was the sole director and shareholder of the company and its registered address was the same as his home address.
Following the assignment, the landlord of the holding served a notice to quit at Mr Thomas’ home address and which was addressed to Mr Thomas rather than the assignee company.
The Court of Appeal held that this was not an instance in which the Mannai principle could save the defective notice. The notice was addressed to a previous tenant of an agricultural holding and so was not given to the current tenant. This is despite the fact that the landlord could not have known about the assignment and the current tenant was a company of which the previous tenant was the sole director and shareholder and both the company and the tenant were registered at the same address.
This case demonstrates how difficult it can be to serve notices correctly, given the strict requirements that apply. Not many cases will involve a concealed assignment but it remains important to ensure proper legal advice is always sought in relation to the service of notices and all available investigations are undertaken to ensure the correct party receives the notice at the correct place.
Cladding disputes: liability – Dan Cudlipp, Emma Forsyth & Phoebe Jackson write for the Property Law Journal
7 November 2022
Views
Construction Senior Associate, Dan Cudlipp, and trainees Emma Forsyth and Phoebe Jackson, have written for the Property Law Journal, on construction contracts and the implication of the judgment in Martlet Homes v Mulalley.
This article was first published in Property Law Journal 402 (November 2022) and is also available on lawjournals.co.uk.
The case of Martlet Homes v Mulalley [2022] concerns the use of defective cladding in high-rise tower blocks and is of particular significance as it is the first High Court judgement on a cladding system dispute following the Grenfell Tower tragedy.
Cudlipp, Forsyth and Jackson write of the background to the case, the claim judgement, and wider significance and highlight how: “In a construction contract, the question of whether there has been a design or specification breach requires a consideration of professional negligence.”
They summarise that “a holistic approach when considering regulatory framework is essential. Moreover, design and build contractors cannot shy away from their responsibilities as qualified designers by seeking to rely on what others in the industry may be doing.”
Renters’ Reform Bill: A ‘New Deal’ for Residential Tenants
6 July 2022
Views
Property Litigation Partner, Natasha Rees, and Associate, Elizabeth Oxendale, consider the Government’s long awaited White Paper published on 16 June, which sets out the 12 point action plan to reform the private rented sector.
While there is currently no indication of when the Bill will become law, it is set to introduce changes which will fundamentally overhaul the existing basis of the Private Rented Sector.
Supreme Court ruling paves way for 5G coverage expansion in the UK – Anna Mullins speaks to City AM
28 June 2022
Views
Property Litigation Partner, Anna Mullins, spoke to City AM following the Supreme Court’s ruling that makes it easier for telecommunications firms to deploy 5G infrastructure in the UK.
The judgment, which comes as the government pushes ahead with plans to transform the UK into a “global leader in 5G”, stipulates that telecoms firms have the right to upgrade their existing phone masts, even in the cases where landowners do not grant them permission.
Mullins described the ruling as a “triumph for technology.”
Renters’ Reform Bill – the end of no fault evictions?
18 May 2022
News
The government has announced in the Queen’s Speech that it will shortly publish a White Paper setting out details of the much anticipated Renters’ Reform Bill.
The Bill was first proposed by Theresa May’s government in April 2019 to offer tenants renting privately greater security. Having lost momentum whilst the COVID pandemic became the government’s priority, it now forms part of the government’s “levelling up” policy.
The main elements of the Bill are as follows:
The abolishment of “no fault” evictions. These currently fall under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 and allow landlords to serve a notice on tenants to terminate the tenancy without reason;
Reforming possession grounds for landlords, introducing new and stronger grounds for repeated incidences of rent arrears, and reducing notice periods for anti-social behaviour;
The application of a legally binding “Decent Homes Standard” in the Private Rented Sector, intended to stop private landlords renting out homes that are of such a low quality that they endanger the health of their tenants;
The introduction of a new Private Renters’ Ombudsman, intended to resolve landlord and tenant disputes without the need to go to court; and
The implementation of a new property portal to “help landlords understand their obligations, give tenants performance information to hold their landlord to account, and help councils crack down on poor practice”. It is not entirely clear what this will entail.
In an accompanying press statement, Michael Gove described the use of section 21 as an “injustice that sees renters unable to put down roots in their communities”. Whilst its arbitrary nature can lead to tenants being subjected to unfair treatment, many landlords use section 21 to legitimately end tenancy agreements – for example if they wish to sell the property. If the government is to maintain a fair balance between landlords’ abilities to deal with their assets and tenants’ abilities to live securely in their homes, it will need to introduce additional grounds for possession as well as strengthening the current regime.
It is clear that change is firmly on the government’s agenda but for now the law remains unchanged and the proposed reforms are unlikely to come into force for some time given they are at a preliminary stage. Any landlords or potential landlords should bear in mind that the introduction of these reforms could, in due course, severely restrict the ability to obtain vacant possession of properties within their portfolio.
The impact of Croydon LBC v Kalonga on fixed-term tenancies: Sarah Heatley speaks to Property Week
21 April 2022
Views
Property Litigation Senior Associate, Sarah Heatley, has written for Property Week on the recent judgement handed down by the Supreme Court in Croydon LBC v Kalonga [2022] UKSC and the impact this will have on fixed-term secure tenancies.
Until the Localism Act 2011 came into force, it was relatively straightforward for landlords to obtain possession of their properties (subject to serving the correct notice period and agreement by the courts). The Act and the advent of flexible tenancies changed this, making it unclear how possession could be obtained during the fixed term (usually of at least two years).
In the case of Kalonga, the Supreme Court held that there are two ways of doing so – via a break clause or a forfeiture clause in the tenancy contract – without which, the tenancy would continue until the end of the fixed term.
Heatley says: “The clarity by the Supreme Court on this matter will surely be welcomed by landlords and tenants alike.”
The article was first published on Property Week on 13 April 2022 and is available to read here, behind the paywall.
The Commercial Rent Bill: A Last Resort for Pandemic-Related Losses – Julia Tobbell writes for CoStar
13 April 2022
Views
Property Litigation Partner, Julia Tobbell, has written for CoStar News on The Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill and the end of the moratorium on tenant evictions.
Whilst the Act creates a mechanism to address the issue of rent arrears accrued during the pandemic, the length and expense of the arbitration process suggests that the Government intends parties to use it only as a last resort.
Tobbell says, “Ordinarily arbitration is a private process, which is attractive to many commercial parties. However, the Act allows either party to request an oral hearing in public, and awards must be published except for limited confidential information. This could be a powerful disincentive to proceeding down this route, as tenants will have their finances laid bare in a public forum.”
The article was first published in CoStar on April 6 2022 and can be read in full behind the paywall here.