Disclaimer, dissolution and bona vacantia

Disclaimer

Liquidators and trustees in bankruptcy (trustees) are entitled to disclaim any onerous property.

Onerous property in each case is defined (sections 178(3) and 315(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986) as:

•
any unprofitable contract
•
any other property which is unsaleable or not readily saleable, or is such that it may give rise to a liability to pay money or perform any other onerous act

The form of onerous property that is most commonly encountered by office-holders is leasehold property, but disclaimer is not in any way limited just to leases. It applies to any contract or property that falls within the scope of the statutory definitions. For guidance on onerous property, see Practice Note: What is considered onerous property or contracts?

Disclaimer is effected by the liquidator or trustee authenticating and dating a notice of disclaimer and sending copies of the authenticated and dated notice of disclaimer to prescribed persons.

Disclaimer takes effect from the date of the notice of disclaimer, except in respect of disclaimers of leasehold property and (in the case of disclaimer by a trustee) of property which

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Property Disputes News

Property Disputes weekly highlights—19 March 2026

This week's edition of Property Disputes weekly highlights includes: the passing of the Building Safety (Wales) Bill, a Court of Appeal ruling on the meaning of ‘building’ in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, and High Court decisions on causation in an overage negligence claim, and the effect of rescinding a contract on a buyer’s unilateral notices. It also includes the fourth edition of the RICS service charge residential management code, and Upper Tribunal decisions on landlord cost recovery and modification of a restrictive covenant.

RICS global standard on responsible AI use in surveying practice now in effect

The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) has announced that its first global professional standard for responsible use of artificial intelligence (AI) in surveying practice came into effect for all members and regulated firms on 9 March 2026. The standard sets out requirements across four areas: governance and risk management, professional judgement and oversight, transparency and client communication and the responsible development of AI. It provides a structured framework to support firms in managing their AI use, including maintaining risk registers, adopting responsible use policies and undertaking procurement due diligence. RICS has also published supporting materials, including sector-specific case studies covering construction, valuation, commercial property, residential property, land and natural resources, building surveying, as well as risk management templates and client information notes.

The ‘successful party’ in multi-element Part 36 offers (Cooper and others v Ludgate House Ltd)

Dispute Resolution analysis: The substantive claim concerned the claimants’ right to light appurtenant to their flats over the defendant’s development site. Following the hearing, the court found in favor of the claimants’ and awarded damages accordingly (but reject the claimants’ claim for injunctive relief). In this case, the court gave guidance on which party was ‘successful’ for the purposes of CPR 44.2 following a multi-element Part 36 offer. The defendant’s had offered to settle not just in respect of the claimant’s right to light as a result of their development, but also for any statutory claims under section 204 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 (HPA 2016), following the future planned development of an adjacent site. Lord Justice Fancourt held that he was not able to confidently estimate what the diminution in the claimant’s flat would be in those circumstances and therefore he could not conclude that the defendant had beaten their Part 36 offer. This case should therefore serve as a warning to parties making Part 36 offers with multiple elements, particularly where those elements are difficult to quantify and do not, as in this case, form part of the claim. Written by Charlotte Payne, barrister at 7KBW.

BPF publishes response to government consultation on new domestic EPC metrics highlighting complexity and implementation issues

The British Property Federation (BPF) has published its response to the government’s consultation on the Home Energy Model (HEM) methodology for assessing existing dwellings and producing new domestic Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) metrics, stating that it supports improvements to the regime while identifying several issues. It supports enhancements to the EPC framework and welcomes higher minimum energy efficiency standards in the private rented sector but notes that some proposals may increase complexity and should remain as simple and clear as possible for investors, landlords, consumers and assessors. The BPF also highlights considerations regarding the application of the new metrics to blocks of flats and apartments which form a significant proportion of the private rented sector in England noting the potential for some properties to fall within exemption categories under the Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards (MEES) regime. It indicates that clarity on compliance routes will be important and notes that perceptions of non-compliance may affect property values. In addition, the BPF states that it would welcome further engagement on how information will be presented in revised EPCs to support clarity and consumer understanding.

View Property Disputes by content type :

News