The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) announced the introduction of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill to Parliament on 10 July 2025. MHCLG also published accompanying guidance outlining the Bill’s measures. Part 5 of the Bill includes measures banning upwards-only rent review clauses in business tenancies to which Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 applies. The ban will extend to renewal leases and to put options where a landlord can require a tenant to take a new tenancy. Once in effect, any upwards-only rent review clause included in a new or renewal commercial lease will be unenforceable. Rent will instead be determined according to the methodology set out in the lease, which may result in a higher, lower, or unchanged rent. The measure is intended to create a fairer commercial leasing environment for tenants, ensure more efficient high street rent setting and promote economic growth.

Employment news analysis: The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has launched a consultation on proposed changes to its technical guidance on sexual harassment and harassment at work. The changes take into account the new legal obligation on employers to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment of their workers, set out in changes to the Equality Act 2010 made by the Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023 and coming into force on 26 October 2024. The consultation runs between 9 July 2024 and 6 August 2024.

Ireland—Commercial analysis: This article, written by Alan Roberts, Alison Fanagan and Rachel Kemp of A&L Goodbody LLP, discusses the Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2025 that is currently progressing through the legislative process and aims to streamline Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) licensing systems.

This flowchart illustrates the process of making a proposed instruction claim under the NEC4 Engineering and Construction Contract, which might entitle the Contractor to additional time to complete

Ireland—Banking & Financial Service analysis: This article, was written by Stephen d’Ardis of Arthur Cox.

Creditors are often keen to establish proprietary claims as they create rights in rem (which attach to the property itself) rather than personal claims (which just attach to a person). This difference is particularly important when a company enters insolvency as assets subject to proprietary claims will not form part of the distressed company's estate, so the holder may be able to make a full recovery, rather than having to prove as an unsecured creditor in the liquidation/administration and wait for a dividend (which usually takes several months and is often less than a 50% dividend — and sometimes almost nothing at all). Effectively, proprietary claims leap-frog over secured and preferential creditors in the waterfall of priorities as the assets are ring-fenced for the benefit of the holder of the proprietary claim. For payment waterfalls, see Practice Note: Waterfall of payments—a comparative guide. Trust principles Proprietary claims are usually based on principles of trust law, which require the existence of the following certainties to create a valid trust (Re Sendo International (in administration)):

TMT analysis: A recent judgment of the High Court serves as the latest instalment in digital asset fraud case law, in particular with regard to claims against unidentifiable fraudsters. The court ruled that where persons unknown were anonymous but identifiable, summary judgment would be granted, but that judgment would not be granted where those persons were both anonymous and unidentifiable. In doing so, the court has confirmed the treatment of digital assets as property for these purposes and demonstrated flexibility in not requiring the claimant to undertake onerous identification exercises, particularly in the context of fraud. Written by Jason Raeburn, partner, at Paul Hastings.

This Practice Note sets out what proprietary estoppel is, how to establish a plea of proprietary estoppel and provides examples of when in practice you may wish to raise proprietary estoppel. It considers proprietary estoppel from a generic standpoint. For industry specific guidance on proprietary estoppel for property law practitioners, see Practice Note: Proprietary estoppel for property disputes lawyers. Proprietary estoppel—what is it? Unlike the other forms of estoppel (see Practice Note: Estoppel—what, when and how to plead) which cannot ordinarily found a cause of action, proprietary estoppel can. It is typically used where a party (B) seeks to assert a proprietary right to land belonging to another party (A) in circumstances where B has been led to believe, by a promise, words or conduct and/or by acquiescence from A, that they (B) have or can expect to acquire an interest in the land. The decisions in Ramsden v Dyson and Willmott v Barber provide an appropriate starting point for an understanding of the doctrine. Both were cases where the claimant sought to establish a proprietary interest

A means of acquiring rights in land in an informal manner.

Private Client analysis: The court upheld a claim to shares in a family business by operation of proprietary estoppel. This is one of the first cases to consider proprietary estoppel following the Supreme Court’s decision in Guest v Guest. The court also considered what assurances might give rise to proprietary estoppel in the context of family-run businesses. Where parents make informal assurances to their children in order to encourage them to work in the family business, then such informal assurances may well form the basis for a proprietary estoppel. Written by Christopher Snell, barrister at New Square Chambers.

Property Disputes analysis: The Upper Tribunal (UT) (Lands Chamber) determined that an annual periodic tenancy with security of tenure under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954) had arisen by implication where a nightclub operator had gone into occupation of land and paid rent. However, no interest had been acquired under the doctrine of proprietary estoppel or constructive trust. Written by Tiffany Scott QC, barrister at Wilberforce Chambers and counsel for the claimants.

Property Disputes Analysis: In Howe v Gossop the High Court had to grapple on appeal with how the doctrine of proprietary estoppel interacts with the provisions of section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 (LP(MP)A 1989). The court dismissed the appeal and, considering the various grounds of appeal from the County Court, held that—(i) where there was a ‘transactional’ case in which proprietary estoppel arose, LP(MP)A 1989, s 2 did not stand in the way of equitable relief, (ii) there was no requirement that a case be ‘exceptional’ before relief would be granted relating to proprietary estoppel where the parties had tried and failed to enter into a binding contract, nor did there necessarily have to be assurances that technicalities would not be relied upon, (iii) if essentially what was sought was to enforce a failed agreement, different considerations would arise, (iv) even if such an agreement were incomplete, relief might still be granted. Written by Andrew Vinson, barrister, at Exchange Chambers.