Liz introduced me to Barr Ellison a few years ago. They now carry out most of our legal work, which is quite a broad spectrum and often demanding. Liz and the company always come through for us. I'm very happy to recommend them.Rick Parisi, Executive Chairman at Cambridge Innovation Parks Ltd
Commercial Property Team
Elizabeth DeyongCommercial Property & Senior Partner
Rosie HillCommercial Property Solicitor
Sophie HarrimanCommercial Property Solicitor
Lucy HarrisonCommercial Property Associate
Sarah PayneLitigation Solicitor
Elizabeth Deyong Commercial Property & Senior Partner
Rosie Hill Commercial Property Solicitor
Sophie Harriman Commercial Property Solicitor
Lucy Harrison Commercial Property Associate
Sarah Payne Litigation Solicitor
This case demonstrates the impact of technology on practices that have developed prior to that technology.
The case provides a lesson to all involved in the sale/purchase of a property. Make it clear, from the outset, both in negotiations and in the contract, what is included in the sale and [...]
The High Court has granted the European Medicines Agency the right to appeal its decision that its Canary Wharf lease has not been frustrated by Brexit.
The background to this case provides sober reading for any landowners of vacant sites. In this instance, around 2000 tonnes of waste including food and medical waste was deposited on Newark’s vacant land without [...]
The government is keen to afford residential tenants greater security and the increasing obstacles to service of a Section 21 Notice appear directed at this. There is now a consultation upon removing the blanket [...]
Anybody entrusted with selling property on the behalf of a lender can take comfort in the robust approach shown by the Court.
It is always preferable for leases to contain express reservations to alter, build and erect scaffolding in favour of a landlord who might want to develop at some point in the future.
When opposing the grant of a new tenancy, the Supreme Court has introduced an additional “acid test” for landlords in relation to reconstruction work as a reason to oppose the grant of a new tenancy. [...]
A Court of Appeal decision serves as a warning to developers of the dangers of proceeding with developments in breach of a restrictive covenant.
The Supreme Court held that the landlord’s intention to demolish or reconstruct must be independent of the tenant’s claim for a new tenancy and not conditional upon it.