60 acast.com Tanfield Talks https://tanfieldchambers.co.uk/resources/?cat=recordings en Tanfield Chambers Services Limited Business Law, Property Law, Legal Commentary, Expert Analysis, Barristers Insights, Tanfield Talks, Case Law, Property,Development, Tanfield Expert commentary on developments in business and property law. Tanfield Talks provides you with topical and expert commentary from the leading business and property barristers at Tanfield.  


Join us as our barristers give you the essentials on the legislation and cases which matter most to those working in business and property law.


https://tanfieldchambers.co.uk/


Authors: Tanfield members


Producer: Peter Shevlin

A Pod60 production for Tanfield Chambers Services Limited 

https://pod60.com/

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

]]> Tanfield Talks provides you with topical and expert commentary from the leading business and property barristers at Tanfield.  


Join us as our barristers give you the essentials on the legislation and cases which matter most to those working in business and property law.


https://tanfieldchambers.co.uk/


Authors: Tanfield members


Producer: Peter Shevlin

A Pod60 production for Tanfield Chambers Services Limited 

https://pod60.com/

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

]]> false Tanfield clerks@tanfieldchambers.co.uk 6729ff058e194291075f11a8 tanfield-talks episodic https://assets.pippa.io/shows/6729ff058e194291075f11a8/1730827663522-b54292d3-88fc-4e2d-875a-16a3ed5707a5.jpeg https://tanfieldchambers.co.uk/resources/?cat=recordings Tanfield Talks S2 E3: Pupillage Uncovered: from training to tenancy S2 E3: Pupillage Uncovered: from training to tenancy Fri, 27 Mar 2026 06:02:00 GMT 13:13 69c51bfe88f1e89132ee4ecb false https://shows.acast.com/tanfield-talks/episodes/s2-e4-pupillage-uncovered-from-training-to-tenancy 69c51bfe88f1e89132ee4ecb 6729ff058e194291075f11a8 s2-e4-pupillage-uncovered-from-training-to-tenancy From first six to tenancy in property law practice full 2 3 Nicholas Isaac KC is joined by Sami Allan to reflect on his pupillage at Tanfield and the transition to tenancy.


Producer: Peter Shevlin

A Pod60 production for Tanfield

https://pod60.com/

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

]]> Nicholas Isaac KC is joined by Sami Allan to reflect on his pupillage at Tanfield and the transition to tenancy.


Producer: Peter Shevlin

A Pod60 production for Tanfield

https://pod60.com/

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

]]> S2 Ep2: Boundary line lessons from White v Alder S2 Ep2: Boundary line lessons from White v Alder Tue, 03 Feb 2026 06:02:00 GMT 23:47 6970f360d00eff242dcf2d9b false https://tanfieldchambers.co.uk/podcast/boundary-line-lessons-from-white-v-alder-2025-ewca-civ-392/ 6970f360d00eff242dcf2d9b 6729ff058e194291075f11a8 s2-ep2-boundary-line-lessons-from-white-v-alder Clarity or conflict? Navigating boundary agreements in practice full 2 2 In this episode of Tanfield Talks, Nicholas Isaac KC and Robyn Cunningham discuss boundary agreements and the issues that commonly arise in practice.


The first half looks at the Court of Appeal’s decision in White v Alder [2025] EWCA Civ 392. The case considers informal boundary agreements and builds on a long line of authority on the subject. Nicholas and Robyn explore how informal agreements can come about, when the courts may be willing to recognise them, and the risks involved where boundaries have never been formally established.


In the second half, the focus shifts to determined boundaries. The discussion considers what a determined boundary involves and whether seeking one is always the best course in practice.


Citations

Cases:

White v Alder [2025] EWCA Civ 392

Gibson v New [2021] EWHC 1811 (QB)

Nata Lee Ltd v Abid [2015] 2 P. & C.R. 3

Neilson v Poole (1969) 20 P. & C.R. 909


Legislation: 

Land Registration Act 2022, s 60 


Producer: Peter Shevlin

A Pod60 production for Tanfield

https://pod60.com/

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

]]> In this episode of Tanfield Talks, Nicholas Isaac KC and Robyn Cunningham discuss boundary agreements and the issues that commonly arise in practice.


The first half looks at the Court of Appeal’s decision in White v Alder [2025] EWCA Civ 392. The case considers informal boundary agreements and builds on a long line of authority on the subject. Nicholas and Robyn explore how informal agreements can come about, when the courts may be willing to recognise them, and the risks involved where boundaries have never been formally established.


In the second half, the focus shifts to determined boundaries. The discussion considers what a determined boundary involves and whether seeking one is always the best course in practice.


Citations

Cases:

White v Alder [2025] EWCA Civ 392

Gibson v New [2021] EWHC 1811 (QB)

Nata Lee Ltd v Abid [2015] 2 P. & C.R. 3

Neilson v Poole (1969) 20 P. & C.R. 909


Legislation: 

Land Registration Act 2022, s 60 


Producer: Peter Shevlin

A Pod60 production for Tanfield

https://pod60.com/

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

]]> S2 Ep1: Forfeiture of leases S2 Ep1: Forfeiture of leases Tue, 20 Jan 2026 06:02:00 GMT 26:21 696e560e4788cf9ec6f12050 false https://tanfieldchambers.co.uk/podcast/forfeiture-of-leases/ 696e560e4788cf9ec6f12050 6729ff058e194291075f11a8 forfeiture-of-leases Recent cases, practical pitfalls, and evolving principles in lease forfeiture full 2 1 Christopher Heather KC and Elizabeth Fisher explore one of the oldest and most challenging areas of property law: forfeiture of leases. In this episode, they consider four recent cases that highlight the practical difficulties, key principles, and evolving aspects of forfeiture. 


Citations: 

Cases

Sik v Malik [2025] EWHC 383 (Ch) 

The Tropical Zoo Ltd v The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Hounslow [2024] EWHC 1240 (Ch).

Tanfield v Meadowbrook Montessori Ltd [2024] EWHC 1759 (Ch)

Freifeld v West Kensington Court Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 806

Magnic Ltd v Ul-Hassan and anor [2015] EWCA Civ 224

Bland v Ingrams Estates Ltd (No 2) [2001] EWCA Civ 1088

First penthouse Ltd v Channel Hotels and Proper Ties (UK) Ltd [2003] EWHC 2713 (Ch)

McDrury v Luporini [2000] 1 NZLR 652—> would we add? 

 

Legislation 

Law of Property Act 1925, s 146 

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, s 25


Producer: Peter Shevlin

A Pod60 production for Tanfield

https://pod60.com/

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

]]> Christopher Heather KC and Elizabeth Fisher explore one of the oldest and most challenging areas of property law: forfeiture of leases. In this episode, they consider four recent cases that highlight the practical difficulties, key principles, and evolving aspects of forfeiture. 


Citations: 

Cases

Sik v Malik [2025] EWHC 383 (Ch) 

The Tropical Zoo Ltd v The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Hounslow [2024] EWHC 1240 (Ch).

Tanfield v Meadowbrook Montessori Ltd [2024] EWHC 1759 (Ch)

Freifeld v West Kensington Court Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 806

Magnic Ltd v Ul-Hassan and anor [2015] EWCA Civ 224

Bland v Ingrams Estates Ltd (No 2) [2001] EWCA Civ 1088

First penthouse Ltd v Channel Hotels and Proper Ties (UK) Ltd [2003] EWHC 2713 (Ch)

McDrury v Luporini [2000] 1 NZLR 652—> would we add? 

 

Legislation 

Law of Property Act 1925, s 146 

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, s 25


Producer: Peter Shevlin

A Pod60 production for Tanfield

https://pod60.com/

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

]]> S1 Ep8: Section 423 Insolvency Act: transactions defrauding creditors S1 Ep8: Section 423 Insolvency Act: transactions defrauding creditors Fri, 21 Nov 2025 06:02:00 GMT 36:33 691defed5e54c6660a24174c false https://tanfieldchambers.co.uk/podcast/s423-insolvency-act-transactions-defrauding-creditors-mace-and-brueton-examine-why-you-need-to-know-about-this-section/ 691defed5e54c6660a24174c 6729ff058e194291075f11a8 s1-ep8-section-423-insolvency-act-transactions-defrauding-cr Mace and Brueton examine why you need to know about this section full 1 8 Synopsis


Andrew Brueton and Andrew Mace examine Section 423 of the Insolvency Act, which targets transactions designed to place assets beyond the reach of creditors. 


Cases

Invest Bank PSC v El-Husseini [2022] EWCA 894 (Comm)

El-Husseiny v Invest Bank PSC [2025] UKSC 4

Purkiss v Kennedy [2025] EWCA Civ 268 and [2024] EWHC 1081 (Ch)

Rangers Football Club 2012 Plc (In Liquidation) (formerly Rangers Football Club Plc) v Advocate General for Scotland [2017] UKSC 45

Inland Revenue Commissioners v Duke of Westminster [1936] AC 1

Allen v Hurst & Ors [2022] EWHC 2649 (Ch)

Sayers v Dixon [2025] EWHC 1886 (Ch)

Credit Suisse Virtuoso SICAV-SIF & Anor v SoftBank & Ors [2025] EWHC 2631 (Ch)

 

Legislation

ss423, 424, 425 Insolvency Act 1986


Producer: Peter Shevlin

A Pod60 production for Tanfield

https://pod60.com/

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

]]> Synopsis


Andrew Brueton and Andrew Mace examine Section 423 of the Insolvency Act, which targets transactions designed to place assets beyond the reach of creditors. 


Cases

Invest Bank PSC v El-Husseini [2022] EWCA 894 (Comm)

El-Husseiny v Invest Bank PSC [2025] UKSC 4

Purkiss v Kennedy [2025] EWCA Civ 268 and [2024] EWHC 1081 (Ch)

Rangers Football Club 2012 Plc (In Liquidation) (formerly Rangers Football Club Plc) v Advocate General for Scotland [2017] UKSC 45

Inland Revenue Commissioners v Duke of Westminster [1936] AC 1

Allen v Hurst & Ors [2022] EWHC 2649 (Ch)

Sayers v Dixon [2025] EWHC 1886 (Ch)

Credit Suisse Virtuoso SICAV-SIF & Anor v SoftBank & Ors [2025] EWHC 2631 (Ch)

 

Legislation

ss423, 424, 425 Insolvency Act 1986


Producer: Peter Shevlin

A Pod60 production for Tanfield

https://pod60.com/

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

]]> S1 Ep7: Business rates liability: corporate ratepayer insolvency S1 Ep7: Business rates liability: corporate ratepayer insolvency Thu, 04 Sep 2025 09:19:26 GMT 28:26 68b9599f4199e5a9cefa852d false https://tanfieldchambers.co.uk/podcast/business-rates-liability-corporate-ratepayer-insolvency/ 68b9599f4199e5a9cefa852d 6729ff058e194291075f11a8 s1-ep7-business-rates-liability-corporate-ratepayer-insolven Martin Young and Nora Wannagat on business rates liability and insolvency risks full 1 7 Synopsis

 

Martin Young and Nora Wannagat provide an introduction to issues arising when a corporate client faces liability for business rates and the impact of insolvency.

 

Citations

 

Cases:

  • Cornhill Insurance plc v Improvement Services Ltd [1986] 1 WLR 114
  • Re Toshoku Finance (UK) plc [2002] 1 WLR 671
  • Exeter City Council v Bairstow [2007] EWHC 400 (Ch)
  • Laing (John) & Son Ltd v Kingswood Assessment Area Assessment Committee [1948] 2 KB 116, [1948] 1 All ER 943, 46 LGR 321, 112 JP 304, [1948] LJR 1619, 64 TLR 407, 151 EG 411
  • R (Secretary of State for Health & Social Care) v Harlow DC [2021] EWHC 909 Admin
  • Kaye v South Oxfordshire District Council [2013] EWHC 4165 (Ch), [2014] 2 All ER 1019, [2014] 2 BCLC 383, [2014] Bus LR 597, [2014] BPIR 416, [2014] All ER (D) 134 (Jan)
  • Re Nortel GmbH (in administration) [2013] UKSC 52, [2014] AC 209, [2013] 4 All ER 887, [2013] 3 WLR 504, [2013] 2 BCLC 135, [2013] Bus LR 1056, (2013) Times, 19 August, [2013] BPIR 866, [2013] All ER (D) 283 (Jul)

 

Legislation:

  • Schedule B1, Insolvency Act 1986, para 3
  • r.3.50 and 3.51 of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016
  • r.6.42 of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016
  • Non-Domestic Rating (Collection and Enforcement) (Local Lists) Regulations 1989 (SI 1989/1058) and in particular Regulation 18
  • Non-Domestic Rating (Unoccupied Property) (England) Regulations 2008 (SI 2008/386)


Producer: Peter Shevlin

A Pod60 production for Tanfield

https://pod60.com/

 

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

]]> Synopsis

 

Martin Young and Nora Wannagat provide an introduction to issues arising when a corporate client faces liability for business rates and the impact of insolvency.

 

Citations

 

Cases:

  • Cornhill Insurance plc v Improvement Services Ltd [1986] 1 WLR 114
  • Re Toshoku Finance (UK) plc [2002] 1 WLR 671
  • Exeter City Council v Bairstow [2007] EWHC 400 (Ch)
  • Laing (John) & Son Ltd v Kingswood Assessment Area Assessment Committee [1948] 2 KB 116, [1948] 1 All ER 943, 46 LGR 321, 112 JP 304, [1948] LJR 1619, 64 TLR 407, 151 EG 411
  • R (Secretary of State for Health & Social Care) v Harlow DC [2021] EWHC 909 Admin
  • Kaye v South Oxfordshire District Council [2013] EWHC 4165 (Ch), [2014] 2 All ER 1019, [2014] 2 BCLC 383, [2014] Bus LR 597, [2014] BPIR 416, [2014] All ER (D) 134 (Jan)
  • Re Nortel GmbH (in administration) [2013] UKSC 52, [2014] AC 209, [2013] 4 All ER 887, [2013] 3 WLR 504, [2013] 2 BCLC 135, [2013] Bus LR 1056, (2013) Times, 19 August, [2013] BPIR 866, [2013] All ER (D) 283 (Jul)

 

Legislation:

  • Schedule B1, Insolvency Act 1986, para 3
  • r.3.50 and 3.51 of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016
  • r.6.42 of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016
  • Non-Domestic Rating (Collection and Enforcement) (Local Lists) Regulations 1989 (SI 1989/1058) and in particular Regulation 18
  • Non-Domestic Rating (Unoccupied Property) (England) Regulations 2008 (SI 2008/386)


Producer: Peter Shevlin

A Pod60 production for Tanfield

https://pod60.com/

 

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

]]> S1 Ep6: Enfranchisement – the effect of A1 Properties S1 Ep6: Enfranchisement – the effect of A1 Properties Mon, 02 Jun 2025 05:00:00 GMT 27:01 683a9a9e2780b226c7ce6f25 false https://tanfieldchambers.co.uk/podcast/enfranchisement-the-effect-of-a1-properties/#:~:text=Piers%20Harrison%20and%20Ceri%20Edmonds,complex%20requirements%20of%20property%20statutes. 683a9a9e2780b226c7ce6f25 6729ff058e194291075f11a8 s1-ep6-enfranchisement Piers Harrison and Ceri Edmonds discuss the landmark Supreme Court decision in A1 Properties v Tudor Studios RTM full 1 6 Piers Harrison and Ceri Edmonds discuss the landmark Supreme Court decision in A1 Properties v Tudor Studios RTM. This case resets the approach of courts to minor procedural errors when attempting to comply with the often complex requirements of property statutes.


1:11   The “old approach”- where there is a question of statutory interpretation, whether the statutory provision is mandatory or directory.

2:02  A change of approach following Soneji. Can Parliament have intended complete invalidity for non-compliance?

2:59   Natt v Osmond – Court of Appeal said property cases were a question of statutory construction so breach always had the same result irrespective.

3:51   Elim Court – the Court of Appeal said there had been a forgivable and immaterial mistake and the claim notice was still valid.

5:18   A1 Properties – explanation of the Supreme Court decision. It looked at the validity of the process following the absence of a notice ie whether there has been prejudice.

8:18  What is the status now of Natt v Osmond?

12:59 Discussion of different factual scenarios and how they are impacted by A1 Properties.

13:15  Scenario 1 – the notice gives insufficient time in the context of the 1993 Act.

14:47 Scenario 2 – late service of a counter-notice.

16:33 Scenario 3 – failure to attach a plan to a claim notice.

17:30 Scenario 4 – failure to set out the prices proposed in the initial notice.

18:47 Scenario 5 – failure to serve an intermediate landlord or third party.

21:12  Scenario 6 – late notice to a third party.

22:14  A1 Properties looked at right to manage not enfranchisement. This is important as there are far more variables in enfranchisement cases.

24:50 The principles established by A1 Properties.


Philip Rainey KC and Mark Loveday acted for the Association of Leasehold Enfranchisement Practitioners (ALEP) in A1 Properties. You can read more about the case here.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

]]> Piers Harrison and Ceri Edmonds discuss the landmark Supreme Court decision in A1 Properties v Tudor Studios RTM. This case resets the approach of courts to minor procedural errors when attempting to comply with the often complex requirements of property statutes.


1:11   The “old approach”- where there is a question of statutory interpretation, whether the statutory provision is mandatory or directory.

2:02  A change of approach following Soneji. Can Parliament have intended complete invalidity for non-compliance?

2:59   Natt v Osmond – Court of Appeal said property cases were a question of statutory construction so breach always had the same result irrespective.

3:51   Elim Court – the Court of Appeal said there had been a forgivable and immaterial mistake and the claim notice was still valid.

5:18   A1 Properties – explanation of the Supreme Court decision. It looked at the validity of the process following the absence of a notice ie whether there has been prejudice.

8:18  What is the status now of Natt v Osmond?

12:59 Discussion of different factual scenarios and how they are impacted by A1 Properties.

13:15  Scenario 1 – the notice gives insufficient time in the context of the 1993 Act.

14:47 Scenario 2 – late service of a counter-notice.

16:33 Scenario 3 – failure to attach a plan to a claim notice.

17:30 Scenario 4 – failure to set out the prices proposed in the initial notice.

18:47 Scenario 5 – failure to serve an intermediate landlord or third party.

21:12  Scenario 6 – late notice to a third party.

22:14  A1 Properties looked at right to manage not enfranchisement. This is important as there are far more variables in enfranchisement cases.

24:50 The principles established by A1 Properties.


Philip Rainey KC and Mark Loveday acted for the Association of Leasehold Enfranchisement Practitioners (ALEP) in A1 Properties. You can read more about the case here.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

]]> <![CDATA[S1 Ep5: The Right to Renew: The Law Commission's Consultation Paper on Business Tenancies]]> Wed, 14 May 2025 13:07:47 GMT 28:55 68249406a9ce4d369408d513 false https://tanfieldchambers.co.uk/podcast/the-right-to-renew-the-law-commissions-consultation-paper-on-business-tenancies/ 68249406a9ce4d369408d513 6729ff058e194291075f11a8 s1-ep-5-the-right-to-renew-the-law-commissions-consultation- Featuring Edward Denehan and Lorenzo Leoni from Tanfield full 1 5 Edward Denehan and Lorenzo Leoni consider and discuss the Law Commissions’ Consultation Paper on the security of tenure provisions for business tenants conferred by Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (the "Act"), and the pros and cons of the alternative security of tenure models advanced by the Law Commission.


1:49  An overview of the current regulation of business tenancies.

4:03  Tenancies protected by section 23 of the Act.

5:21  Tenancies excluded from protection - section 43 of the Act.

5:39  Contracting out of the Act under section 38 of the Act and Regulatory Reform Business Tenancies (England & Wales) Order 2003.

8:49  There are 4 models considered by the Commission for security of tenure, ranging from minimum to maximum protection.

9:38  Model 1 - minimum security of tenure.

9:57  Model 2 - contracting in regime.

10:25 Model 3 - the current system - a contracting out regime.

10:40 Model 4 - return to original 1954 Act. Not possible to contract out of security for tenure.

11:14  Law Commission pros and cons for all the models.

20:29 What prompted the Law Commission to consult? What does the market want? Is change needed?

 

Case citations


Producer: Peter Shevlin

A Pod60 production for Tanfield

https://pod60.com/

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

]]> Edward Denehan and Lorenzo Leoni consider and discuss the Law Commissions’ Consultation Paper on the security of tenure provisions for business tenants conferred by Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (the "Act"), and the pros and cons of the alternative security of tenure models advanced by the Law Commission.


1:49  An overview of the current regulation of business tenancies.

4:03  Tenancies protected by section 23 of the Act.

5:21  Tenancies excluded from protection - section 43 of the Act.

5:39  Contracting out of the Act under section 38 of the Act and Regulatory Reform Business Tenancies (England & Wales) Order 2003.

8:49  There are 4 models considered by the Commission for security of tenure, ranging from minimum to maximum protection.

9:38  Model 1 - minimum security of tenure.

9:57  Model 2 - contracting in regime.

10:25 Model 3 - the current system - a contracting out regime.

10:40 Model 4 - return to original 1954 Act. Not possible to contract out of security for tenure.

11:14  Law Commission pros and cons for all the models.

20:29 What prompted the Law Commission to consult? What does the market want? Is change needed?

 

Case citations


Producer: Peter Shevlin

A Pod60 production for Tanfield

https://pod60.com/

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

]]> S1 Ep4: Rude awakenings and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 S1 Ep4: Rude awakenings and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 Mon, 10 Mar 2025 06:00:00 GMT 18:37 67c86f4d48f26a4bcaf88e51 false https://tanfieldchambers.co.uk/podcast/rude-awakenings-and-the-landlord-and-tenant-act-1954/ 67c86f4d48f26a4bcaf88e51 6729ff058e194291075f11a8 s1-ep4-rude-awakenings-and-the-landlord-and-tenant-act-1954 Daniel Dovar and Will Beetson explore the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 full 1 4 In this episode of Tanfield Talks, Daniel Dovar and Will Beetson explore some of the more recent(ish) cases on landlord’s grounds of opposition under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. All cases referred to in this episode are cited below.

 

Additionally, Daniel Dovar’s book, Business Premises: Possession & Lease Renewal – 7th Edition, is shamelessly plugged in this episode and is available here. You may also wish to read Landlord and Tenant Review, which is a bi-monthly journal on all matters landlord and tenant to which Tanfield Chambers contributes, published by Sweet & Maxwell. 

 

For more information on our landlord and tenant work, please visit our expertise page on the website.

 

Cases mentioned

  • Gill v Lees News Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 1178
  • Betty’s Cafés Ltd v Phillips Furnishing Stores Ltd [1959] AC 20
  • S Franses Ltd v The Cavendish Hotel (London) Ltd [2018] UKSC 62
  • McDonald’s Restaurants Ltd v Shirayama Shokusan Company Ltd [2024] EWHC 1133 (Ch)


Producer: Peter Shevlin

A Pod60 production for Tanfield

https://pod60.com/

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

]]> In this episode of Tanfield Talks, Daniel Dovar and Will Beetson explore some of the more recent(ish) cases on landlord’s grounds of opposition under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. All cases referred to in this episode are cited below.

 

Additionally, Daniel Dovar’s book, Business Premises: Possession & Lease Renewal – 7th Edition, is shamelessly plugged in this episode and is available here. You may also wish to read Landlord and Tenant Review, which is a bi-monthly journal on all matters landlord and tenant to which Tanfield Chambers contributes, published by Sweet & Maxwell. 

 

For more information on our landlord and tenant work, please visit our expertise page on the website.

 

Cases mentioned

  • Gill v Lees News Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 1178
  • Betty’s Cafés Ltd v Phillips Furnishing Stores Ltd [1959] AC 20
  • S Franses Ltd v The Cavendish Hotel (London) Ltd [2018] UKSC 62
  • McDonald’s Restaurants Ltd v Shirayama Shokusan Company Ltd [2024] EWHC 1133 (Ch)


Producer: Peter Shevlin

A Pod60 production for Tanfield

https://pod60.com/

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

]]> S1 Ep3: Adrian and Andrew, navigating the fine print of inheritance. S1 Ep3: Adrian and Andrew, navigating the fine print of inheritance. Fri, 21 Feb 2025 06:00:00 GMT 29:28 67b76017b6cab9efc4b280e3 false https://tanfieldchambers.co.uk/podcast/adrian-and-andrew-navigating-the-fine-print-of-inheritance/ 67b76017b6cab9efc4b280e3 6729ff058e194291075f11a8 s1-ep3-adrian-and-andrew-navigating-the-fine-print-of-inheri Adrian Carr and Andrew Brueton of Tanfield dive into private client law, focussing on their specialism on the formality of wills and caveats. full 1 3 Listen in as Adrian and Andrew provide some practical guidance on some of the problems everybody comes across with their everyday practice.  


There is more information regarding Tanfield’s expertise in private client law on our expertise page: 


https://tanfieldchambers.co.uk/area/private-client/


Producer: Peter Shevlin

A Pod60 production for Tanfield

https://pod60.com/

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

]]> Listen in as Adrian and Andrew provide some practical guidance on some of the problems everybody comes across with their everyday practice.  


There is more information regarding Tanfield’s expertise in private client law on our expertise page: 


https://tanfieldchambers.co.uk/area/private-client/


Producer: Peter Shevlin

A Pod60 production for Tanfield

https://pod60.com/

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

]]> S1 Ep2: Butler and Bowker on the BSA S1 Ep2: Butler and Bowker on the BSA Mon, 06 Jan 2025 06:00:36 GMT 20:37 6769507c25a0b820a2074a13 false https://tanfieldchambers.co.uk/podcast/butler-and-bowker-on-the-bsa/ 6769507c25a0b820a2074a13 6729ff058e194291075f11a8 s1-ep1-butler-and-bowker-on-the-bsa Andrew Butler KC and Robert Bowker discuss the Building Safety Act 2022. full 1 2 Andrew Butler KC and Robert Bowker discuss some of the latest developments in the caselaw under the Building Safety Act, and what might be expected in this area 2025.


Listen in to hear their thoughts on the BSA in 2024 and their predictions for 2025.


All cases mentioned are listed below:

  • Adriatic Land 5 Limited v The Long Leaseholders at Hippersley Point [2023] UKUT 271 (LC).
  • Triathlon Homes LLP v Stratford Village Development Partnership, Get Living & East Village Management Ltd [2024] UKFTT 26 (PC)
  • Princes Park Apartments LON/00AG/HIN/2024/0001 
  • Lehner v Lant Street Management Company Limited [2024] UKUT 0135 (LC)
  • Blomfield v Monier Road Limited (Smoke House & Curing House) LON/00BG/HYI/2023/0024


There is more useful information regarding the Building Safety Act on our Building Safety Hub.


Producer: Peter Shevlin

A Pod60 production for Tanfield

https://pod60.com/

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

]]> Andrew Butler KC and Robert Bowker discuss some of the latest developments in the caselaw under the Building Safety Act, and what might be expected in this area 2025.


Listen in to hear their thoughts on the BSA in 2024 and their predictions for 2025.


All cases mentioned are listed below:

  • Adriatic Land 5 Limited v The Long Leaseholders at Hippersley Point [2023] UKUT 271 (LC).
  • Triathlon Homes LLP v Stratford Village Development Partnership, Get Living & East Village Management Ltd [2024] UKFTT 26 (PC)
  • Princes Park Apartments LON/00AG/HIN/2024/0001 
  • Lehner v Lant Street Management Company Limited [2024] UKUT 0135 (LC)
  • Blomfield v Monier Road Limited (Smoke House & Curing House) LON/00BG/HYI/2023/0024


There is more useful information regarding the Building Safety Act on our Building Safety Hub.


Producer: Peter Shevlin

A Pod60 production for Tanfield

https://pod60.com/

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

]]> S1 Ep1: Life as a Tanfield Pupil S1 Ep1: Life as a Tanfield Pupil Fri, 06 Dec 2024 06:00:54 GMT 51:15 6751c3bb6040a1e250fb1441 false https://tanfieldchambers.co.uk/podcast/life-as-a-tanfield-pupil/ 6751c3bb6040a1e250fb1441 6729ff058e194291075f11a8 s1-ep1-life-as-a-tanfield-pupil Exploring pupillage with Head of the Pupillage Committee and member of Tanfield Chambers, James Fieldsend, and former Tanfield pupil and now member of Chambers, Annie Higgo. full 1 1 Annie Higgo, one of Tanfield's juniors, talks to Head of Pupillage, James Fieldsend about applying for pupillage and how she found life as a pupil at Tanfield.

Listen in to hear all their useful tips for making applications and how to make the most of your pupillage.

You can find more useful information on the Tanfield Pupillage pages.

 

  • Introduction with James Fieldsend and Annie Higgo - 00:40 
  • Pre-application 03:25
  • Property Law 04:16
  • Researching the right Chambers 06:58 
  • Importance of Mini-Pupillages 11:20
  • Application Process 17:28
  • Mechanics of pupillage 33:20 (first six 35:40, second six 40:00)
  • Life after pupillage 46:00


Producer: Peter Shevlin

A Pod60 production for Tanfield

https://pod60.com/

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

]]> Annie Higgo, one of Tanfield's juniors, talks to Head of Pupillage, James Fieldsend about applying for pupillage and how she found life as a pupil at Tanfield.

Listen in to hear all their useful tips for making applications and how to make the most of your pupillage.

You can find more useful information on the Tanfield Pupillage pages.

 

  • Introduction with James Fieldsend and Annie Higgo - 00:40 
  • Pre-application 03:25
  • Property Law 04:16
  • Researching the right Chambers 06:58 
  • Importance of Mini-Pupillages 11:20
  • Application Process 17:28
  • Mechanics of pupillage 33:20 (first six 35:40, second six 40:00)
  • Life after pupillage 46:00


Producer: Peter Shevlin

A Pod60 production for Tanfield

https://pod60.com/

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

]]> S1: Trail S1: Trail Tue, 05 Nov 2024 17:00:29 GMT 1:20 672a335aafa9526ed458a45c false https://tanfieldchambers.co.uk/resources/podcasts/ 672a335aafa9526ed458a45c 6729ff058e194291075f11a8 s1-trail Trail for Tanfield Talks trailer 1 1

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

]]>

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

]]>