Developer

As also detailed in our Disputes section, the Government has set out plans for commonhold reform in its new white paper to bring the system of long leasehold flats to an end.  Commonhold White Paper: The proposed new commonhold model for homeownership in England and Wales – GOV.UK

Commonhold is an alternative management structure to the long leasehold system which allows occupiers to own the freehold of individual flats in a building with the common parts of the building being jointly managed by the flat owners through a commonhold association.  It was first introduced in 2002 but has not been widely adopted. The White Paper proposes changes aimed at reinvigorating the tenure including:

• New rules to give more flexibility which will help commonhold to work for all types of developments, including mixed-use buildings and shared ownership homes;
• Greater security for mortgage lenders by protecting the solvency of commonhold associations by making public liability insurance mandatory, greater availability of reserve funds and oversight of commonholders to approve annual budgets to keep costs down;
• Improve management of commonholders with new rules for appointing directors, clear standards for repairs and mandating use of reserve funds;
• Amended rules will mean more democracy in agreeing the annual budget and clarity with safeguards for changes to “local rules” which relate only to a particular commonhold building.  This will allow homeowners to prioritise what is important for their building;
• A Code of Practice will be released to set out how costs should be apportioned and increase transparency;
• The Government will strengthen regulation of managing agents, who will now report to the common holders who will be able to hire or fire managing agents.

The government is holding consultations with key stakeholders and intends to publish a draft bill (the Leasehold and Commonhold Reform Bill) in the second half of 2025.

It is anticipated that as well as reinvigorating the drive towards a commonhold system, the Bill will contain more detail on the timeframe for the transition to commonhold and how it proposes to convert existing leaseholds to commonhold tenure.

A comeback for commonhold? | Foot Anstey

The Law Society has published its new practice note, addressing some of the common challenges Law Society members have identified when considering how climate change may impact the sale of a property. The practice note covers:

• understanding climate risks for properties in the UK and what solicitors need to be aware of, both in the longer-term but also how to advise on the risks;
• solicitors’ duties; and
• the advice which should be given if a search reveals that climate change poses a significant risk.

Climate change and property | The Law Society

On 3 March, changes to Right to Manage (RTM) which had been set out in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 were brought into force via the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 (Commencement No. 3) Regulations 2025.

These changes look to make it easier and cheaper for leaseholders to take over management of their buildings (there is no requirement for mismanagement by the landlord to be proved for leaseholders to make a claim).

Some of the changes include:

• The requirement to pay the landlord’s reasonable costs upon making a RTM claim has been removed, except in limited circumstances. Landlords will therefore have to pay their own costs if such a claim is made.
• RTM previously only applied to buildings where no more than 25% was non-residential. This has been increased to 50%, meaning that more buildings will be eligible for a RTM claim and consequently more leaseholders will have the right to take over management from their landlords.

The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 (Commencement No. 3) Regulations 2025

Subsequent to these regulations, a Private Members’ Bill has been introduced to the Commons by Labour MP Rachel Blake, which aims to expand the RTM provisions further in favour of leaseholders.

The Bill’s stated aims are to:

• define qualifying tenants for the purposes of claiming a RTM;
• reduce the number of qualifying tenants required to give notice of a RTM;
• establish a duty on freeholders to assist RTM companies in connecting with leaseholders in their properties;
• establish a presumption in favour of RTM schemes in certain circumstances.

The Bill was presented to Parliament on 18 June 2025 and is due to have its second reading on 4 July 2025.

Right to Manage and Leasehold Bill – Parliamentary Bills – UK Parliament

The Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023 (“LURA 2023”) included requirements for disclosure of contractual rights over land in England and Wales.  Secondary legislation will determine how the information will be requested but the requirements for disclosure will include key information such as the type of agreement, the parties involved, the date of the agreement and details of the solicitors involved in the transaction. This will impact certain land agreements including option agreements, conditional contracts and promotion agreements.  The Government consulted on draft regulations seeking views on the implications of collecting and publishing information on contractual control agreements. The consultation closed in March 2024.

Potential disclosure requirements in relation to contractual control agreements will mean that parties to such documents will have to supply more potentially sensitive commercial information. This will also cause further administrative steps for developers and their advisers to correctly file information in line with regulations.  If information is not provided or false information is given knowingly or recklessly, this could constitute a criminal offence under LURA 2023 which carries a maximum of 2 years imprisonment and an unlimited fine.

This article provides more information on the proposals – Government consults on more transparent picture of controls on land

In a letter in early 2025 to the Chair of the Land Registry board, Matthew Pennycook MP confirmed he would like to see rapid design and delivery of the systems to collect and publish contractual control agreements.  This is the first indication that the new government will proceed with these proposals. There were no details of timing.

In 2021, the Government proposed to raise the minimum energy efficiency standard to C by 2027 and B by 2030.

The original proposals were abandoned for residential properties but a new consultation was launched on the proposal to raise the minimum energy efficiency standard for domestic (residential) properties.  The proposals include revised metrics for calculating asset ratings and would require that from 2028, all new leases need to comply with the new higher standard; and by 2030, all leases need to comply with the higher standard. The consultation closes on 2 May 2025.

The Government is yet to confirm whether it will implement the original plans for commercial properties. Developers will want to know whether an existing property is exempt under the proposed changes and may consider undertaking works to improve their EPC rating in the long term.  Clarity is also needed as to the standard to which new properties must be constructed.

Improving the energy performance of privately rented homes: consultation document (HTML) – GOV.UK

Another consultation was recently launched dealing with improving the energy efficiency of socially rented homes in England with proposals to introduce a minimum energy efficiency standard for socially rented homes in England for the first time.

Improving the Energy Efficiency of Socially Rented Homes in England – GOV.UK

LURA gives local authorities powers to arrange for a rental auction to be carried out in respect of qualifying high-street premises, with the objective of improving the high streets.  The Local Authorities (Rental Auctions) (England) and Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 came into force on 2 December 2024 and lays out the steps the Local Authority must take if it wants to auction a lease of a vacant High Street property.

The Government hopes the auctions will improve the areas in which the vacant premises are situated. However, it will likely take many local authorities time to implement the regulations.

Please see this article for more information ‘Fair Warning’ for the High Street

A Private Members’ Bill that seeks to regulate short-term letting was presented to Parliament by Labour MP Rachael Maskell on 2 June 2025 and is due for its second reading on 4 July 2025.

The Bill aims to address concern around the growth of holiday lets, particularly in rural and coastal areas where local residents are being priced out of residential housing. The Bill would introduce a new planning use class for short-term lets that would require local planning authorities to licence individual lettings. The authority would then also have the power to remove licences, for example in the case of anti-social behaviour (addressing the issue with so-called ‘party flats’).

The Bill would also make changes to small business rates relief as it is understood that the government is looking to remove some of the tax advantages landlords have providing short-term holiday lets and encourage them to provide more residential housing.

Short-term Let Accommodation Bill – Parliamentary Bills – UK Parliament

The mandatory BNG regime for all TCPA (Town and Country Planning Act) developments came into force on 12 February 2024. Since this date, developers have had a statutory obligation to ensure a 10% improvement in biodiversity per development. On 14 March 2025, the government published its first annual report around the income taken from statutory BNG credits. This is the first time data has been published which gives an overall picture of the market for statutory BNG credits. Statutory BNG credits are the third rung of the biodiversity hierarchy, with developers having a duty to firstly consider mitigation on site, followed by purchasing off-site units from third parties such as habitat banks, and only if neither of the first two options are available can they purchase statutory credits.

The report showed that £247,416 had been received for credits in the year from 12 February 2024 – 11 February 2025.

In addition to the recent fiscal report, Dr Nick White of Natural England has confirmed that Natural England are currently working on a monitoring and evaluation framework – the first report of which is expected shortly (precise date not given). The report will look at how the BNG system has been working so far and whether it has been smoothing planning processes as intended.

Comment         

Amongst the developments we expect to see in BNG:

• Securing off-site BNG requires either a Section 106 Agreement or a Conservation Covenant to be agreed. Where a Section 106 is agreed with the LPA, a Conservation Covenant is agreed with a ‘responsible body’ of which there are, at the date of writing, 28 recognised institutions, several of them also being local authorities. There is an increased cost associated with Covenants, but in some cases they can be a valuable tool where negotiating a Section 106 Agreement with the LPA is not practical or where there are time constraints. As to which option is more frequently used, this is site specific and depends on the development and the relationships between the various parties.
• BNG currently only applies to developments subject to the TCPA regime, which excludes NSIPs (Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects). The government was previously aiming to bring NSIPs within the BNG regime from November 2025, but this has now been pushed back to May 2026. We can expect to see a surge in interest in BNG leading up to this date, and with it the potential for the demand to drive down the overall price of the off-site credits.

A significant Court of Appeal case has caused a stir amongst the planning community recently due to the significant implications for how and when key planning documents must be made publicly available. The decision in Greenfields (IOW) Ltd v Isle of Wight Council has caused many to rethink their procedures for agreeing and publishing Section 106 Agreements, because the developer’s planning permission was quashed after it was decided that the local planning authority’s failure to publish the Section 106 Agreement before granting planning permission invalidated the decision.

The alarming point for LPAs and developers is that it has been common practice for Section 106 Agreements to be published to the LPA’s planning register after the grant is made (or at the same time). However, in this case, the judge found that the local interest group had been prejudiced because they had been unable to comment on matters contained in the Section 106 Agreement which they had a significant and active interest in.

You can read our insights into the Greenfields case here: Publish or perish: The legal consequences of failing to publish Section 106 Agreements

On 23 June 2025, the UK Government published its industrial strategy – The UK’s Modern Industrial Strategy

The document sets out a plan to drive growth in eight key sectors, which are likely to have a knock-on effect and boost the construction industry. The eight sectors are:

1. advanced manufacturing
2. creative industries
3. life sciences
4. clean energy
5. defence
6. digital and technologies
7. professional business services
8. financial services.

Whilst the construction industry is not identified separately in the strategy as a specific key sector, the document indicates that construction as a “foundational industry” requires action to encourage growth, such as:

• modernisation of methods (including embedding modern methods of construction in government infrastructure projects);
• acknowledging the skills shortage in the industry and aiming to increase the number of (and secure the pipeline of) skilled workers by investing in training facilities and work placement schemes and providing tax incentives for employers to train workers; and
• reforming public procurement to create a simpler, more commercial and transparent regime.

JCT recently published the much-anticipated new Target Cost Contract 2024 which is designed to offer more flexibility in relation to project costs by allowing the parties to share in “pain” and “gain” measuring actual cost against the target cost.

Simon Stubbs has published an article on the new JCT TCC here and also an article on target cost contracts generally here.

Social housing developers will need to be aware of Awaab’s Law (so named in memory of two-year old Awaab Ishak, who died tragically in 2020 as a result of a severe respiratory condition due to prolonged exposure to mould in his home) coming force from 27 October 2025. This new law requires social housing landlords to address all emergency hazards and all damp and mould hazards that present a significant risk of harm to tenants within fixed timeframes.

The Government has published a guidance note to help Social Housing landlords prepare for implementation of the new law here

It is intended that the law will be extended next year to include:

• excess cold and excess heat
• falls associated with baths etc., on level surfaces, on stairs and between levels
• structural collapse, and explosions
• fire, and electrical hazards
• domestic and personal hygiene and food safety

As part of the phased approach, further extensions of the law are planned for 2027.

On 11 June 2025, Chancellor Rachel Reeves set out plans for the foreseeable future in the Government’s Spending Review. Some of the ‘winners’ include housebuilders, the nuclear sector, and defence.

£39bn will be invested in the housing sector to support the Government’s ambitious housebuilding targets. Interestingly, 25% of the £39bn commitment is to be set aside for contributions towards energy efficiency.

Lee Ward and Jake Christophersen have published an article looking at the impact on developers and others within the construction industry here.

On 2 July 2025 the Government published its ambitions to deliver around 300,000 social and affordable homes over the next 10 years through a new £39 billion Social and Affordable Homes Programme, adding that at least 60% of these homes will be for social rent.

Homes England will be responsible for most of the funding, with up to 30% (£11.7 billion over the 10-year plan) being allocated to the Greater London Authority. It is hoped that the programme will offer more certainty for developers to invest and plan housebuilding for the future.

Angela Rayner, Deputy Prime Minister and Housing Secretary, commented “We are seizing this golden opportunity with both hands to transform this country by building the social and affordable homes we need, so we create a brighter future where families aren’t trapped in temporary accommodation and young people are no longer locked out of a secure home.”

For further information see publications from the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government here and here

On 21 May 2025, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in the case of URS Corporation Ltd (Appellant) v BDW Trading Ltd (Respondent) – UK Supreme Court

The decision provides clarity on several points concerning:

• “voluntary” behaviour in rectifying building defects;
• whether the retrospective effect of the Building Safety Act 2022 (“BSA”) applies to non-Defective Premises Act 1972 (“DPA”) claims;
• to whom duties under the DPA are owed; and
• when a contribution claim can be brought.

Read our case law update by Dickon Court, Abigail Philpotts and Harry Jupp here.

On 8 July 2025, the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in the case of Triathlon Homes LLP v Stratford Village Development Partnership [2025] EWCA Civ 846

This decision provides clarity on the interpretation and application of the Building Safety Act 2022 in relation to the issue of Remediation Contribution Orders (s. 124 of the Act) and whether these can be applied retrospectively to costs incurred prior to this part of the Act coming into force.

The judgment reinforces the public policy point that original developers (and their associated entities/group companies) should be held responsible for the costs of remedying building safety defects.

Some potential practical consequences:

• Given that original developers will now be held accountable for building safety defects far beyond the usual period of liability expressed in construction contracts and warranties (in some cases reaching back 30 years) it is expected that corporate transactions involving developers will now be under increased scrutiny going forwards as purchasers will want to know the risk of being called on to satisfy a Remediation Contribution Order.
• It is expected that new developments will want to ensure high standards of building safety at the outset, bearing in mind any lapse may come back to haunt them far into the future.

It remains to be seen how this will impact the construction insurance industry but potential consequences could be increased premiums and/or exclusions from liability.

For further information read our case law update by Lee Ward and Thomas Barnett here.

On 27 February 2025 the TCC handed down its judgment in the case of BDW Trading Ltd v Ardmore Construction Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 434 (TCC) (27 February 2025)

This decision highlights the limits of section 130 BSA and the Court’s ability to pierce the corporate veil.

BDW Trading Ltd (BDW) was the developer of five projects between 1999 and 2005 (“the Buildings“) with Ardmore Construction Ltd (ACL) employed as the design and build contractor. Following the Grenfell Tower fire in 2017, BDW accepted responsibility to undertake fire safety and remedial works to the Buildings. They sought a contribution from ACL given the defects were caused by ACL’s breach of duty under the Defective Premises Act 1972 (DPA).

BDL made two applications for an order for information and documents (IOs) under section 132 Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA) to prepare to apply for a building liability order under section 130 BSA.  However, the High Court dismissed BDW’s application for IOs against ACL on the grounds that BDW failed to establish the necessary “relevant liability” under the BSA for these orders. Specifically, in one development, Ardmore had discharged their liability by payment, while in other developments, liability was still being determined and the applicant should not be inviting an assessment on the merits prematurely.

The Bill seeks to improve public safety at large events and premises open to the public. This includes shops, hotels, restaurants, bars and nightclubs, sports venues, hotels, hospitals, places of worship, schools, colleges and universities, bus and railway stations, museums and venues that host entertainment activities.

The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill 2024 – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) was introduced to Parliament on 12 September 2024 and is expected to be passed into law later in 2025. It will impose a legal duty on parties responsible for premises and events to implement measures to reduce the risk of harm during terrorist attacks. It will categorise venues into “standard” and “enhanced” premises based on their capacity. The person in control of the premises in connection with its use will be responsible for compliance. The Security Industry Authority will monitor compliance. Non-compliance could be a criminal offence in some instances and will carry the risk of regulatory inspections and substantial fines, from £10,000 to £18 million, or 5% of global revenue for enhanced premises or events.

The Bill is known as Martyn’s Law in tribute to Martyn Hett, who was killed in the 2017 Manchester Arena attack.  This Bill could be relevant to developers who own or develop premises which fall within the criteria in the Bill.

The Renters’ Rights Bill (RRB) is a bill intended to improve and modernise the private rental sector and increase security and stability for residential tenants. It is expected to become law by Summer 2025. The changes intended by the RRB will significantly change the residential rental landscape in England.

The RRB will abolish the ability of a residential landlord to evict a tenant on a “no fault” basis by serving a notice under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988. This will apply to both existing and new tenancies. The change will mean landlords must provide a statutory reason to evict a tenant. Reasons like rent arrears will remain, but the thresholds will be increased.

The RRB will also abolish assured shorthold tenancies (ASTs) and fixed-term assured tenancies of less than 7 years. These types of tenancies will be made periodic (i.e. month to month). The practical effect of this is that tenants will be able to stay in a residential property until they decide to end the tenancy by giving two months’ notice, unless one of the statutory grounds for the landlord to terminate the tenancy is satisfied.

As alluded to, the RRB makes significant changes to the grounds for possession available to landlords, including by: (1) introducing new mandatory and discretionary grounds, (2) altering or removing existing mandatory or discretionary grounds, and by (3) generally increasing notice periods and where certain grounds are used (such as new mandatory ground 1A, which will allow a landlord to evict a tenant if they wish to sell a property (or let it for more than 21 years)), preventing the landlord from re-letting the property for 12 months from the notice date.

The Bill places significant limits on landlords’ ability to increase rent. Landlords will only be permitted to increase rents once per year on two months’ notice to the tenant. Tenants will also be given increased powers to challenge the rent increase and validity of the notice to the First Tier Tribunal. Rental bidding beyond the levels of rent advertised for a property will also be prohibited, with breaches punishable by financial penalties.

The RRB also requires all private rented sector landlords to register with a new independent Private Rented Sector Landlord Ombudsman, likely for a small annual fee. The Ombudsman will be able to make binding decisions regarding tenant complaints, enforceable using both civil penalties and criminal prosecution. Landlords will also need to register with a new Private Rented Sector Database to let a property and obtain an order to evict a tenant.

These changes will have wide-ranging consequences for landlords and managing agents, with increased administrative burdens and a reduced ability to remove tenants.

The RRB is expected to be passed into law by the end of July 2025.

Please see this article for more details in the context of landed estates – Renters’ Rights Revamp – Key points for landed estates

The Government has published a Guide to the Renters’ Rights Bill – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

The Supreme Court have ruled on the correct construction of paragraph 5(4)(c) of Schedule 6 to the Land Registration Act 2002 (“the 2002 Act”), concerning the timing of adverse possession claims.

In October 2019, Mr Brown discovered that his neighbours, Mr and Mrs Ridley (the Ridleys) were constructing a house on part of his land. The Ridley’s sought to be registered as proprietors as they had used this land since 2004 and believed they owned it until approximately February 2018, when they made an application for planning permission.

The Supreme Court had to decide whether the required ten-year period of reasonable belief in ownership must immediately precede an application for adverse possession or if this could be any ten-year period during adverse possession.

The Supreme Court favoured the latter argument, allowing the Ridley’s claim despite their reasonable belief ending 21 months before their application, citing the intention of the 2002 Act to confine adverse possession rights, but not to wholly remove them.

What Brown v Ridley means for adverse possession 

This related judgment addressed the key issues concerning the termination and renewal of agreements under the Electronic Communications Code (the Code) and will be welcomed by operators.

In the first case (the Steps Hill proceedings), Vodafone sought to renew its existing Code agreement at the telecommunications site known as Steps Hill. Following this, the site provider, Icon, sought to terminate the agreement and require Vodafone to remove its equipment.

In the second case (the Pound Hill proceedings), Vodafone sought to renew its existing lease of the site known as Pound Hill under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (the Act).

Icon relied on three of the four possible termination grounds in the Steps Hill proceedings, including;

1. Breach: Vodafone allegedly breached the alienation provisions in the existing agreement through its relationship with Cornerstone;
2. Redevelopment: Icon constructed its own mast near the Vodafone site and argued that its redevelopment depended on the termination of Vodafone’s agreement; and,
3. Public Benefit: Icon argued that the prejudice caused by Vodafone’s continued presence outweighed the public benefit (Paragraph 21 of the Code).

In the Pound Hill proceedings, AP Wireless (the landowner) required Vodafone to prove that it was in occupation of the Pound Hill site for the purposes of business to enable renewal proceedings under the Act.

In the end, Vodafone was successful on all grounds, providing clarity on the Code’s termination grounds and asserting that site providers cannot misuse redevelopment arguments to force site removals nor is day-to-day human activity relevant to establish business occupation at a telecommunications site.

The judgment may be viewed here: Vodafone Limited v Icon Tower Infrastructure Limited & Anor – Find Case Law – The National Archives

This case concerned misrepresentation in a seller’s responses to pre-contract enquiries (PEs) about vermin and defects in the property. When asked about (1) the presence of vermin infestation (2) whether reports had been obtained in relation to any infestation and (3) whether there was any resulting damage to the property the seller replied:

“The Seller is not aware of any such matters affecting the property since the renovation and extension works were undertaken and completed but has not had the property surveyed for such matters so no warranty can be given in this regard and the buyer must rely on the results of its own survey, inspection and professional advice.”

The reality was that the seller had experienced a number of problems caused by moths at the property and several pest control companies had recommended remedies to this serious infestation. The buyer only discovered the ‘moth problem’ after the transaction completed.

The Court concluded that the seller had made a fraudulent misrepresentation in the PEs and the contract was rescinded. The property was transferred back to the seller subject to a lien in favour of the buyer being the purchase monies and damages payable for the remediation works. 

This case emphasises a seller’s responsibility to provide “honest answers to PEs, if they answer them at all”. If the seller is unable to provide an honest answer, the PE should remain unanswered (although this carries the risk of flagging any issues to prospective buyers).

The judgment may be viewed here: Patarkatsishvili & Anor v Woodward-Fisher [2025] EWHC 265 (Ch) (10 February 2025)

The Upper Tribunal’s (UT) decision in BNPPDS(J) Limited And BCI Limited V Amanda Hitchings (Valuation Officer) [2025]  reaffirms key principles from the Supreme Court ruling in Newbigin v Monk [2017] regarding the rateable value (RV) of properties undergoing refurbishment.

The dispute involved a warehouse in Newcastle undergoing substantial refurbishment from 28 November 2022 to 24 March 2023. The works involved fitting out the property as a “dark kitchen” for use by McDonalds.

The Premises were assessed for RV in the 2017 rating list as a warehouse and premises at £31,500. The owner issued a check and subsequent challenge on 10 January 2023 and 21 March 2023, citing that the Refurbishment Period rendered the Premises incapable of beneficial occupation.

The issue in question was whether the property was capable of beneficial occupation during the refurbishment period, impacting its rateable value (the value ascribed to a domestic or commercial building based on its size, location, and other factors, used to determine the rates payable by its owner).

The UT held that the property was not capable of beneficial occupation during the refurbishment, and consequently its rateable value should be reduced to £1 during this period.

This decision provides clarity for property developers and owners, confirming that substantial refurbishment rendering a property unoccupiable can justify a temporary reduction in the rateable value.

BNPPDS(J) Ltd & Anor v Hitchings (Valuation Officer) (RATING – HEREDITAMENT – 2017 List – warehouse – works carried out following termination of lease and prior to opening as a delivery kitchen – whether property incapable of beneficial occupation – whether state of reasonable repair to be assumed – Local Government Finance Act 1988, Sch 6, para 2(1)(b)) [2025] UKUT 104 (LC) (26 March 2025)

This case revolved around the interpretation an insurance clause in a commercial lease.

The lease provided that the tenant, Picturehouse Cinemas (the Tenant), should pay insurance by reference to the ‘premium payable…for keeping the Centre insured’. However, in practice, the landlord, London Trocadero (the Landlord), obtained insurance via brokers and paid them a commission. The amount of the broker’s commission could be increased and part of that commission was then repaid to the Landlord (the Landlord’s Commission). The effect of this was that when the total amount was recharged to the Tenant, the Tenant funded the Landlord’s Commission, allowing them to profit at the Tenant’s expense.

The High Court ruled that the Landlord could not pass on the fee paid to the broker to the Tenant as part of the insurance rent as it did not form part of the cost of insurance policy itself and required repayments to the tenant to be made.

This decision unravels a decades old practice of insurance commissions being subsumed into insurance rent payable by tenants which produces pure profit for landlords. This will have significant implications for landlords, with more tenants likely to enquire whether landlords have been earning a profit on any commissions.

The judgment may be viewed here: London Trocadero (2015) LLP v Picturehouse Cinemas Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 1247 (Ch) (23 May 2025)

A dispute arose in the context of the construction of an extension. The Court of Appeal ruled that two neighbours were bound by a boundary demarcation agreement they had no knowledge of which was entered into by their predecessors in title. This case reaffirms the importance of boundary demarcation agreements, as successors in title will only acquire title as delineated by the agreement regardless of their knowledge of the agreement’s existence.

The judgment may be viewed here: White v Alder & Anor [2025] EWCA Civ 392 (07 April 2025)

Labour is driving forward investment in clean, home-grown energy production by creating a new publicly owned company, Great British Energy. The Bill aims to grant the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero the authority to officially establish Great British Energy as a statutory company.

The Great British Energy’s first investment has been in the offshore wind space, having concluded a partnership with the Crown Estate in July 2024. It is not currently clear what the Great British Energy’s investment remit is going to be, but it is hoped that investment will be made in less established technologies, such as green hydrogen and carbon capture and storage, both of which are a focus for the Labour Government. Neither of these technologies have attracted the level of private investment that the former Government had anticipated and an investment by a publicly owned company is likely to assuage concerns by private investors as regards the viability of such technologies.

We anticipate that the remit of the Great British Energy will largely be driven by the output of the National Energy System Operator’s work on the Clean Power Plan 2030. This is expected to be finalised by the end of 2024 and will outline the Government’s plans to deliver a fully decarbonized power system by 2030. The deployment of clean energy projects (both of established and less-established technologies) is likely to provide additional opportunities to those operating within the developer sector to decarbonise their stock.

The Labour Government has expressed its continued support for the Boiler Upgrade Scheme. In the Autumn 2024 Budget the Government committed £5.8 million of funding to develop England’s first heat network zones in 5 cities (Leeds, Plymouth, Bristol, Stockport, Sheffield and London). Construction is expected to start from 2026. The Government also reaffirmed its plans to introduce secondary legislation as outlined above.

Following the enactment of the Energy Act 2023 (‘Act’)

“The Heat Networks (Market Framework) (Great Britain) Regulations 2025” were made on 2 March 2025. The provisions are coming into force on a staggered basis, such that as of 1 April 2025 it is prohibited to carry out a ‘regulated activity’ without authorisation. Broadly, a ‘regulated activity’ involves the operation of a heating network and the supply of heating or cooling through such a network.

So far, OFGEM has consulted on proposed measures that are intended on protecting end consumers (for instance the tenants of residential buildings), by providing for transparency around pricing and a set of standards that suppliers need to adhere to. OFGEM will have regulatory responsibilities under the proposed new regime.

A lot of the detail is yet to be ironed out, so for now those who operate heat networks or supply heating or cooling through such networks are encouraged to: (i) where they own or operate buildings that are connected to a district heat network or buildings that use a communal heat network, identify whether they are a “heat supplier” or “operator” and (ii) monitor the developments in this space to ensure that they are well placed to respond to any transitional arrangements that the Government may put in place.

From 1 April 2025, all existing communal and district heat networks (i.e. those in existence prior to 1 April 2025) will be deemed authorised. Operators of such networks and suppliers of heat or cooling in those networks will be required to register their regulated activities with Ofgem by 26 January 2027.

Heat networks in the spotlight: 2025 and beyond

All new developments, whether they are residential or commercial or an energy project, require a connection to the grid to be able to import electricity (and where there is on-site generation) export electricity to the grid. Whether a development is connecting to the distribution system or the transmission system, it will be affected to some extent by the Grid Connection Reform that National Grid has instigated.

The Grid Connection Reform is a process by which applications for new connections are submitted, assessed and managed is significantly amended. Additionally, the existing queue for projects connecting to the transmission system is going to be rearranged.

Ofgem has approved a modification to the CUSC (Connection and Use of Systems Code), which is intended to implement the plans outlined above.

For more information on how the Grid Connections’ Reform process is progressing see here: Grid connection reform: The big shake-up

The Future Homes Standard, which is intended to be published in Autumn 2025 will include new rules obliging housebuilders to incorporate solar pv panels to new housing developments. The Government has indicated that developers will be required to provide at least 40% coverage (and where this is not possible to still install a ‘reasonable amount’). A lot of the detail is currently unknown and we anticipate that exemptions will be introduced.

For those heat networks that are deemed authorised, the general authorisation conditions will become effective from 27 January 2026 and Ofgem will have powers to take enforcement action from that date.

For more information please read here: Ofgem Consultation: Heat networks regulation: authorisation and regulatory oversight

On 1 September 2025 a new Failure to Prevent Fraud offence will come into force. Large organisations will be liable for up to an unlimited fine if they benefit (or are intended to benefit) from the fraud of an employee, agent, subsidiary, or other an “associated person”. The organisation will have a defence if it had reasonable procedures in place to prevent fraud, and recent Home Office guidance issued on 6 November 2024 assists organisations to understand what “reasonable” fraud prevention procedures might look like.

Our own research found that 45% of organisations had a fraud incident in the preceding 12 months, so even though smaller organisations may be out of scope of the Failure to Prevent Fraud offence, the losses, reputational damage and risk that they find themselves facing fraud-based claims brought by third parties are potentially existential.

Please see our article below for further detail: Failure to Prevent Fraud Offence – Home Office Guidance Update | Foot Anstey

This is a Private Members’ Bill. Although unlikely to pass into law, the Bill provide for a statutory definition of bullying at work; to make provision relating to bullying at work, including to enable claims relating to workplace bullying to be considered by an employment tribunal; to provide for a Respect at Work Code to set minimum standards for positive and respectful work environments; to give powers to the Equalities and Human Rights Commission to investigate workplaces and organisations where there is evidence of a culture of, or multiple incidents of, bullying and to take enforcement action.

A second reading is scheduled for 04 July 2025, so watch this space.

The government is in the process of reforming the apprenticeship levy and has created a new growth and skills levy. The Department for Education is expected to set out further details on the scope of the offer, and how it will be accessed, in due course.

It also announced plans to reform the apprenticeship system in England. The changes, which include shorter and more flexible apprenticeships, are designed to give employers more control over English and maths requirements. The changes will come into effect immediately for English and maths requirements and from August 2025 for the minimum length of an apprenticeship. The minimum duration of an apprenticeship will be reduced from 12 to eight months.

On 11 June 2025, the UK Parliament passed the long-awaited Data (Use and Access) Bill (“DUA Bill”) which then came into force on 19 June 2025.

This bill put forward by the House of Lords has three core objectives: to grow the economy, improve public services and make people’s lives easier. Suggested measures include paving the way for the ‘smart data’ model to be used in more sectors, establishing a trust framework for digital verification services and placing the national underground asset register on a statutory footing.

The most significant aspect of the Bill (which was under reported) was the “smart data” or “open data” provisions. The aspiration here is to create a replica of the “open banking” / Payment Systems Directive II environment but for “consumer data” more generally.

Anyone familiar with open banking / PSD II will know that the implementation of this regulation was very beneficial for “customers” of data in the fintech sector. However, preparing for implementation was very onerous for the supply side both in practical terms – cleaning and structuring the data to make it sharable and navigating both the “open data” legal requirements and the (sometimes contradictory) data security / privacy requirements.

The devil will be in the detail of the regulation made under the primary legislation (the legislation provides broad powers for government to make regulation) so at present it is difficult to see how wide ranging these provisions will be, but it has potential to be a very significant regulatory intervention and worth following for its potential impact on anyone processing “consumer data”.

More information can be found in our recent article – UK Parliament passes Data (Use and Access) Bill following parliamentary “ping-pong” | Foot Anstey

Social media giant Meta has agreed with Claimant that they will not use her data for targeted advertising. The agreement is contained in a settlement to an individual challenge she lodged against Meta’s tracking and profiling back in 2022.

Meta had claimed its “personalized ads” are not direct marketing. The case had been due to be heard in the English High Court on Monday, but the settlement ends the legal action.

Meta has not accepted liability however the settlement indicates there may be a shift by Social Media companies in respect of marketing on their platforms, Commentators are predicting that a pay or consent model may be rolled out by Meta.