header-logo header-logo

31 October 2025 / Fern Schofield , Gwyneth Everson
Issue: 8137 / Categories: Features , Property , Landlord&tenant , Nuisance
printer mail-detail

Property law brief: quarterly review (October 2025)

234237
Fern Schofield & Gwyneth Everson round up the headlines in property law, plus tackle procedural pointers & nuisance neighbours
  • Waller-Edwards v One Savings Bank Plc establishes that lenders are on inquiry of undue influence in any non-commercial transaction involving suretyship, aligning hybrid and pure suretyship cases.
  • Cases such as AmTrust Specialty v Endurance refine the approach to extended disclosure under PD 57AD, while Ap Wireless II v On Tower redefines the boundary between leases and licences.
  • Recent High Court and Upper Tribunal cases (Cooper v Ludgate House and Hassan v Heath) cover rights to light, restrictive covenants, and public benefit, showing courts’ pragmatic approach to property disputes and proportional relief.

This quarterly review considers several significant property law decisions from June to August 2025. The cases are grouped into three categories: high-level guidance from appellate courts, guidance, procedural developments, and disputes between neighbours.

High-level headlines

Waller-Edwards v One Savings Bank Plc [2025] UKSC 22

The Supreme Court

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll