Update 2026
January
Ashrafi v Belmont Green Finance Ltd [2025] EWHC 3247 (Ch)
A High Court decision (15 Dec 2025) dismissing an appeal by occupiers against a possession order, confirming that beneficial ownership interests do not override a lender's security obtained via apparent authority.
Fairmont Property Developers UK Ltd v Venus Bridging Ltd and others [2025] EWCA Civ 1513; [2025] EGCS 192
The Court of Appeal considered the exceptional circumstances in which a mortgagor may be permitted to take control of the sale of property in receivership.
Afan Valley Ltd (in administration) and others v Lupton Fawcett LLP [2026] EWCA Civ 2
The Court of Appeal considered the scope for professional negligence claims arising from investor losses in failed investment schemes.
Anderson and another v Curtis and others [2025] EGCS 207
This is a recent decision highlighting the financial consequences of disputed property rights, including potential liabilities and costs arising from contested land transactions.
February
March
Fairmont Property Developers UK Ltd v Venus Bridging Ltd and others [2025] EWCA Civ 1513
This case concerned an application by a defaulting mortgagor under s.91 of the Law Property Act 1925 whereby it sought the opportunity to market for sale a commercial warehouse property (“the Property”) over which the mortgagee had appointed receivers (“the Receivers”).
Alnajjar & Otrs v West One Loan Limited [2023] EWHC 315
A High Court case concerning a bridging loan and allegations of an unfair relationship under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The court considered the terms of the lending arrangement, including default interest and fees, and whether they created an unfair relationship, highlighting the scrutiny applied to high-cost short-term lending in property transactions.
Renters Rights Act
This new legislation will have serious consequences for the private rental sector.
May
Mentmore Golf Investments Ltd v Gaymer [2025] EWHC 2604
The High Court has confirmed that a mortgagee may validly apply for relief from forfeiture after a possession order has been made, provided the order has not yet been executed. The decision provides important clarification on the timing and procedure for such applications, whilst also highlighting the risk of an application being treated as an abuse of process depending on the circumstances.