We take a moment to reflect on 2025, by bringing you our top 10 property law cases of the year, carefully selected by our real estate disputes team. These cases reflect our common areas of practice and contain some important decisions for developers, landowners, telecoms operators, landlords and tenants (both commercial and residential) and banks.
We're also set for an exciting year ahead in the world of property law. We include some key areas to look forward to during 2026.
1. Cooper v Ludgate House Ltd & Powell v Ludgate House Ltd [2025] EWHC 1724 (Ch) (rights to light)
Flat owners in a residential building brought a claim against a developer of an adjacent new development. The flat owners asked the court to order demolition of parts of the new development and/or for monetary compensation. This was on the basis that the new development blocked some of the light reaching their flats and therefore infringed their rights to light.
The winner?
Developer – on the basis that the court refused to order demolition of any parts of the new development, although the flat owners were awarded substantial compensation.
Why it matters
This case is essential reading for developers in understanding the risks around rights to light, particularly those who continue to build high rise developments in urban areas.
2. Patarkatsishvili v Woodward-Fisher [2025] EWHC 265 (fraudulent misrepresentation)
This has been referred to as the ‘moth-infestation’ case. A high-end home in London was sold for £32.5m. Post purchase the buyer discovered wool insulation in the property was infested with moths.
The buyer wasn't told about the infestation, despite it being known to the seller.
The winner?
Buyer of the property - the court ordered the seller to repurchase the property and pay substantial compensation to the buyer.
Why it matters
This is a good reminder for sellers of property to exercise care in replying to pre-contractual enquiries. Buyers should also be aware that where they are the victim of certain types of misrepresentation (such as fraud), they may be able to force the seller to re-purchase the property.
3. AP Wireless II (UK) Ltd v On Tower (UK) Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 971 (telecoms)
This case concerned a dispute over whether a telecoms equipment agreement created a lease or a contractual licence between a landowner and telecoms operator. The status of the agreement turned on a technical legal argument over whether the duration of the agreement was sufficiently certain. The telecoms operator argued it had a licence because it would provide a more favourable position under the telecoms Code, including a lower rent.
The winner?
Telecoms operator - the agreement was not of sufficiently certain duration and was, therefore, a contractual licence, giving the operator more favourable rights.
Why it matters:
Granting a licence rather than a lease can have significant legal consequences as it can reduce or enhance an occupier’s rights significantly (in this case it resulted in the telecoms operator paying a lower rent). Parties need to be careful that occupational agreements reflect their intentions.
4. Almacantar Centre Point Nominee No 1 Ltd & Anor v Penelope De Valk & Others [2025] UKUT 298 (LC) (building safety)
The case involved works needed to timber-framed cladding, which had deteriorated, on a residential building.
The landlord sort to recover from leaseholders of the building the costs of repairing the cladding through the service charge. The issue was whether the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA) protects leaseholders from paying for unsafe cladding where the defect is not a “relevant defect” as defined by the BSA.
The winner?
Leaseholders – they weren't required to pay towards the cost of repairing the unsafe cladding. The court found the BSA provides for standalone protection to leaseholders for unsafe cladding, regardless of when the defect arose, or whether it was a “relevant defect” within the BSA. The protection isn't dependent on the cladding posing a fire risk.
Why it matters
Landlords of residential buildings need to be aware that there can be significant limitations on recovering, through the service charge, the cost of remediation works carried out to cladding, particularly where it is deemed unsafe.
5. London Trocadero LLP v Picturehouse Cinemas [2025] EWHC 1247 (Ch) (commercial landlord and tenant law)
This dispute involved a commercial lease where the tenant had been paying “insurance rent” to its landlord that included broker fees and landlord’s commission. The issue here was whether the landlord could recover such fees and commissions from the tenant under the terms of the lease.
The winner?
Tenant – the landlord’s commission wasn't recoverable from the tenant under the terms of the lease. The lease only provided for the landlord to insure and recover a premium, it was not drafted in a way to allow the landlord to profit at the tenant’s expense (through the landlord obtaining commissions). Clearer lease drafting would have been needed to allow for landlord recovery of these commissions by way of insurance rent.
Why it matters
It's common practice for landlords to seek to recover commissions from tenants when arranging insurance, so many tenants will no doubt be revisiting lease terms to see whether they can now challenge the amounts they are, or have been, paying towards insurance rent. We are, however, awaiting the outcome of an appeal on this decision.
6. Brown v Ridley UKSC/2024/0044 (adverse possession)
The Supreme Court had to decide an important legal point around the requirements for making an adverse possession claim under the Land Registration Act 2002 (LRA). This is where a person, referred to as a ‘squatter’, claims ownership of registered land by being in possession of the land for ten years. The issue was whether the squatter needs to make an application to the Land Registry or tribunal almost immediately on a dispute arising over ownership with the registered owner of the land in question. This was due to the requirement in the LRA that the applicant (ie the squatter) has to have a ‘reasonable belief’ that the land belongs to them for a period of at least ten years before making an application for registration.
The winner?
Squatter – the Supreme Court found that the application didn't need to be made immediately, as the reasonable belief could be held by the squatter within any period of time.
Why it matters
This is an important clarification around the timing for making an adverse possession claim under the LRA. It avoids the perverse consequence of encouraging squatters to escalate neighbourly disputes quickly (by having to make an application to the Land Registry or tribunal almost immediately upon a dispute arising with the registered owner).
7. The Kingdom Hall Trust v Davies [2025] UKUT 294 (LC) (prescriptive rights and charities)
In this case, the owner of a bungalow claimed a right of way through prescription over a neighbouring car park owned by a charity.
Prescription is where someone claims rights over another person’s land through long use, usually 20 years; importantly, this usually relies on the concept of there being a “fictional grant”. The question was whether the bungalow owner could claim such a right when the grant by the charity would have been ultra vires (ie beyond its powers under Charities’ legislation, as the grant hadn't been made with the authority of the court or the charity commissioner).
The winner?
Charity landowners – as the tribunal found that prescriptive rights based on a fictional grant can't be claimed against certain types of landowners, such as charities, where such a grant would be ultra vires. However, the bungalow owner won in this case as the tribunal found that there could have been a fictional grant before the car park became charity owned.
Why it matters
This is an important case for landowners who are looking to defeat prescriptive rights claims over their land, particularly those who have limited powers of disposition.
8. Ministry of Sound Limited v The British and Foreign Wharf Company limited and others and MVL Properties (2017) Ltd v Leadmill Ltd [2025] (unopposed and opposed lease renewals)
We've grouped these cases together as they are both decisions under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954) that involve well-known music / entertainment venues, namely the Ministry of Sound in London and The Leadmill in Sheffield.
The Ministry of Sound case involved an unopposed lease renewal where the landlord was seeking to include a landlord redevelopment break clause in the new lease. The Leadmill case involved an opposed lease renewal where the landlord was seeking to oppose the grant of a new lease on grounds that the landlord wished to occupy the premises for its own use (known as ‘ground g’ in the LTA 1954).
The winner?
Landlords – in the Ministry of Sound case, the court ordered a landlord redevelopment break clause in the new lease, being a rolling break operable from June 2028 on 9 months’ notice. In the Leadmill case, the court found the landlord could rely on ‘ground g’ to terminate the tenant’s lease.
Why it matters
These cases don't contain new law, but are useful decisions for landlords seeking possession from business tenants with the protection of the LTA 1954, where the landlord has plans to redevelop or occupy premises themselves.
9. University of Cambridge v Persons Unknown [2025] (protest law and ‘newcomer’ injunctions)
The landowner sought an order from the court to prevent ‘persons unknown’ from disrupting activities on two of its sites. The landowner wanted to protect the right of staff to attend their place of work and students to graduate from ceremonial buildings. This type of order is referred to as a ‘newcomer’ injunction.
Result?
The High Court granted the injunction after considering the position with human rights, including freedom of speech.
Why it matters
To protect land from disruption, landowners can seek a pre-emptive court order against persons unknown, who are yet to occupy their land and who may do so for the purpose of protest.
10. Waller-Edwards v One Savings Bank Plc [2025] UKSC 22 (undue influence in non-commercial lending)
This is an important decision for lenders in non-commercial transactions. In this case, the bank had lent money to a couple, which was partly for their joint benefit (as it was used to purchase a home) and partly for one partner’s sole benefit (to pay off personal debts).
These are referred to as “hybrid” transactions. The relationship between the couple broke down and one partner (the appellant) remained living in the home. The bank commenced possession proceedings in relation to the home due to arrears on the loan, and the appellant raised the defence that the bank ought to have been put on inquiry of undue influence in the transaction arising from its knowledge of the non-commercial relationship between the couple, and that the appellant would provide surety for the personal debts of their partner.
The winner?
Borrowers – in the sense that a low threshold applies for when the bank is put on inquiry as to the risk of undue influence so as to engage the "Etridge protocol" in any non-commercial transaction (this protocol requires lenders to ensure that a party who receives no direct benefit for the giving of security receives independent legal advice that explains the nature and extent of the guarantee and potential risks of assuming liability). To be put on notice, there only has to be a de minimis element of borrowing which discharge the debts of one of the borrowers that is not to the financial advantage of the other.
Why it matters
Lenders will need to ensure they have the proper processes and procedures in place to ensure the “Etridge protocol” is followed where they are put on inquiry that there may be undue influence in hybrid transactions, particularly as this case shows a low threshold applies.
Looking ahead to 2026
Some key areas to look forward to during this year are:
- The implementation of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, which will reshape the private rented sector
- The proposed ban on upward-only rent reviews in commercial leases, which is set to make its way through parliament in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
- A further consultation by the Law Commission on commercial lease renewals under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954
- Further discussion over the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, which was recently published by the Government, and which provides for commonhold to replace long leasehold as the default tenure for new flats
- the courts and tribunals being kept busy on matters such as building safety
So there will be lots for property practitioners to discuss and consider with their clients, as we head our way through the year.
Our content explained
Every piece of content we create is correct on the date it’s published but please don’t rely on it as legal advice. If you’d like to speak to us about your own legal requirements, please contact one of our expert lawyers.