Coronavirus (COVID-19)—Property Disputes

This subtopic brings together content on the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak that is relevant to property disputes lawyers.

COVID-19 toolkit

Organisations across different business types, sectors and sizes, found themselves in uncharted water with the onset of coronavirus (COVID-19).

Impact of coronavirus on property

The coronavirus pandemic affected many aspects of practice for property disputes lawyers. Our content addresses various issues and measures which were relevant during the coronavirus pandemic, but, unless otherwise stated, are no longer relevant

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—5 February 2026

This week's edition of Property Disputes weekly highlights includes: the BPF and Law Commission’s comments on the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill and RICS’s comments on the valuation implications of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, High Court decisions regarding proprietary estoppel and unenforceable land contracts, possession proceedings against houseboat occupants, an injunction to prohibit unauthorised encampments and fly-tipping, and decision that a company was liable to pay non-domestic rates despite a Company Voluntary Arrangement. It also includes Upper Tribunal decisions on building safety, and how a microwave alone is insufficient to amount ‘cooking facilities’ for the purposes of determining whether it is a house in multiple occupation, a recent First-tier Tribunal decision granting adverse possession and the Senedd progressing the Building Safety (Wales) Bill to Stage 3 plenary consideration.

Microwave alone insufficient to amount to ‘cooking facilities’ in HMO test (Oxford Hotel Investments Ltd v Great Yarmouth BC)

Local Government analysis: The Upper Tribunal (UT) considered the definition of cooking facilities as part of the test for whether a building is an HMO set out in section 254 of the Housing Act 2004 (HA 2004) and in particular whether that term was satisfied by the presence of a microwave (alone). The property concerned had no other facilities for cooking. The UT held that the presence of a microwave on its own was not sufficient to amount to cooking facilities such as to take the property out of the definition of an HMO and as such held that the property was part of an HMO and subject to the controls of HA 2004. Written by Josef Cannon KC, barrister at Cornerstone Barristers.

RSH publishes Rent Standard 2026 and guidance on rent increase limits

The Regulator of Social Housing (RSH) has published the Rent Standard 2026, which sets out the requirements governing how registered providers must set and increase social housing rents from 1 April 2026. The Rent Standard reflects the government’s revised Policy Statement on Rents for Social Housing. Under the standard, registered providers will generally be permitted to increase rents by the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) plus 1% each year. It also permits additional increases where rents are below the relevant formula rent, subject to specified limits, allowing rents to move gradually towards formula levels.

Proprietary estoppel and unenforceable land contracts (Conway v Conway)

Private Client analysis: In Conway v Conway, the High Court clarified the interplay between proprietary estoppel and the statutory formalities required for contracts for the sale of land under section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 (LP(MP)A 1989). The case concerned an appeal from a first instance decision ordering specific performance of an oral contract for the sale of land as relief in a proprietary estoppel claim. In allowing the appeal, Mr Justice Michael Green held that that proprietary estoppel could not be used to obtain specific performance of an otherwise unenforceable oral contract for the sale of land, but remitted the question of equitable compensation to the County Court due to the absence of alternative relief in the pleadings. The decision clarifies that LP(MP)A 1989, s 2 bars relief that has the effect of enforcing void contracts while leaving open other forms of equitable relief that can satisfy the equity arising in estoppel cases. Written by Cameron Stocks, barrister at Gatehouse Chambers, who acted for the appellant at first instance and on appeal to the High Court.

View Property Disputes by content type :

News