Insurance and leases

Who insures?

Where property is let, the landlord will usually be responsible for arranging insurance of the building, whilst recovering the cost of that insurance from the tenant(s). The landlord will clearly need to insure where the lease is of part only of a building, but even in the case of a lease of the whole of a single building the landlord may well prefer to retain control of the insurance so as to be sure that the building is fully covered at all times.

For further guidance, see Practice Note: Insurance issues for tenants — Who insures?.

Where the landlord insures, it is advisable to include specific tenant covenants:

•
against insuring the building (to avoid the risk of double insurance and the possible effect this might have on the recovery of insurance monies under the landlord's policy)
•
not to do, or fail to do, anything which would lead to the landlord's insurance becoming void or voidable

For further guidance, see Practice Note: Insurance—non-vitiation (non-invalidation) clauses.

Policies usually include a 'noted interest' clause which entitles tenants to be notified of any claim, or

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 News

Property weekly highlights—14 August 2025

This week's edition of Property weekly highlights includes: a look at the draft Building Safety Levy regulations and cases on the right to manage, perpetually renewable tenancies, rent repayment orders and limitation, postponing the effective date of a new rent, service charge disputes and abuse of process and modification of restrictive covenants.

HMLR announces portal enhancements and upcoming changes

HM Land Registry (HMLR) has announced enhancements to its portal, enabling customers to search for and view first registration applications in the View Applications service, provided the Business Unit Variable Direct Debit account key number was included on submission. The portal homepage information panel has also been modified to display pending, live applications with unresolved requisitions. HMLR has outlined further planned changes, including adding text to the panel to clarify the meaning of ‘unresolved’ in relation to outstanding requisitions, changing the View Applications progress status from ‘Saved’ to ‘Draft’, and making improvements to the portal homepage interface.

Insolvency, declarations of trust, loan agreements, artificial asset protection, sham transactions, transactions defrauding creditors, interspousal asset transfers, change of position defence and wife’s entitlement to share of husband’s assets (Sayers v Dixon)

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The court held that six declarations of trust (DoTs) executed by the transferor (Mr Dixon) in favour of his wife (Mrs Dixon) constituted transactions defrauding his creditors within the meaning of section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) and that two of them, purporting to transfer all his future assets and income to Mrs Dixon, along with an accompanying loan agreement, were shams which were void and ineffective. It set aside the DoTs and ordered Mrs Dixon to restore the value of three transferred properties (which had been converted into £551,589 cash) to Mr Dixon’s trustees in bankruptcy (trustees) together with interest of £101,726. It also ordered an account to be taken of the funds that had been transferred to Mrs Dixon or on her behalf by Mr Dixon over the seven years between the date of the DoTs and his bankruptcy. The court dismissed Mrs Dixon’s defence of change of position to the trustees’ claim for restoration, finding that even if such a defence were generally available (which is unclear), she had not acted in good faith and could not rely on it. It also dismissed her defence that, having been married to Mr Dixon for many years, she was entitled to half his assets and/or an entitlement to a share of them by virtue of a right to be maintained. Written by Jonathan Lopian, barrister at New Square Chambers, who acted for the successful claimants.

Court of Appeal on right to manage, strict procedural compliance and equitable tenancies (Avon Freeholds Limited v Cresta Court E RTM Company Ltd)

Property Disputes analysis: The Court of Appeal held that a right to manage (RTM) company’s claim notice was invalid because the company failed to comply with section 78(1) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (CLRA 2002) as it failed to serve an equitable long lessee with a notice inviting participation (participation notice) before serving the claim notice. The Court upheld the Upper Tribunal (UT) (Lands Chamber)’s decision that a tenant of an equitable long lease during the ‘registration gap’ is a ‘qualifying tenant’ within s 75 2002 Act, provided that there is no legal titleholder of that lease. However, the UT had erred in holding that the failure to serve that qualifying tenant with the participation notice did not render the claim notice invalid on the facts of the specific case. Instead, strict compliance is required upon a proper interpretation of the statute, in particular ss 78(1) and 79(2). Written by Sophie Gibson, barrister at Landmark Chambers, junior counsel for the Appellant.