Author: Victoria Thomson

SA Law’s outstanding work for commercial and private clients has been recognised by the Chambers and Partners 2012 Guide to the UK legal profession.

SA Law has been recognised as a leading regional practice by independent legal research bodies Chambers & Partners and The Legal 500, in addition to achieving The Law Society’s Conveyancing Quality Scheme accreditation.

A leading publisher of legal research, Chambers conducts thousands of interviews with lawyers and their clients every year to identify regional leaders around the world.
All of SA Law’s departments have been recognised as regional leaders in the Northern Home Counties, with Managing Partner Steve Ryan cited as a top tier lawyer: “These achievements are extremely important in a sector that suffers from fierce competition in a slow economy. Achieving recognised first class credentials in the marketplace has never been more essential.” Adds Steve Ryan.

To find out more about SA Law and how our dedicated team can assist your business, visit our website www.salaw.com

Author: Jacqueline Button

Two months ago I wrote (here) about Premier Inn’s plans to open a 125 bed budget hotel at the north end of St Peter’s Street in St Albans. Whilst it is universally acknowledged that the north end of town is letting down the prosperous vibe and smart façades of the area closer to the Cathedral local residents couldn’t agree whether or not the proposed new hotel (which would come with 3 new shop units and a gym) was the right thing for the historic (and somewhat snobby) market town.

Premier Inn’s planning application went before St Albans District Council’s planning committee in October. And was rejected. But Premier Inn were encouraged to submit revised plans which they duly did. The application went before the Committee again earlier this week. And was rejected. Again.

The margin of defeat was very narrow (5 votes to 4) and the Committee Chairman, Councillor John Chambers said he was still keen for Premier Inn to occupy the site and urged them (again) to resubmit their plans.

But why should they? After two rejections is a business going to hope for third time lucky or is it going to look for sites elsewhere? There is no Premier Inn in Hertford, for example, or Berkhamstead. Obtaining architect drawn plans and agreeing a S106 Agreement (which the Council asked for after the first rejection) is time consuming and costly. Why should Premier Inn put more time and money on the line when they may feel they have wasted enough of both already?

Premier Inn have expressed disappointment at the decision and referred to the fact that the development would have provided 90 much needed local jobs. They have not commented as to whether they will try again and there is no time scale for that decision being made. In the meantime the top end of St Peter’s Street gets shabbier and more depressing but the residents and Councillors who feel that a budget hotel would be out of place in the town are presumably happy with that.

Author: Chris Alexander

Misrepresentation claims in property transactions are notoriously difficult to succeed with. When the recession hit, I saw an increase in clients wanting to explore misrepresentation claims as a means of escaping the consequences of contracts that they had entered into, alleging that the agents had promised them the earth but that the vendor had only contracted to provide them with the moon.

The best way to protect yourself against these circumstances is always to ensure that the contract fully reflects the parties expectations and if some of those expectations are not going to feature in the contract that everyone is at least aware of this. However, there will always be some circumstances where a disagreement will emerge some time after exchange of contracts…

To read the full article click here.

Author: Jacqueline Button

I recently blogged about the troubles of HMV and their plans to close stores or amalgamate them with Waterstones shops. My colleague Chris Alexander has just written about the continuing problems of JJB which may also lead to the shutting of shops and voids on the high street.

The latest retailer to announce planned store closures is Game, the unoriginally named games retailer which sells (yes, you guessed it!) games, consoles and T-shirts featuring some fairly scary designs presumably favoured by dedicated gamers.

Game, like almost all modern retailers, has a website and its annual online sales are currently running at an impressive £100million. It says it wants to treble this figure by 2013 so that its revenue from digital streams increases from 2.5% of turnover in 2010 to 7.5% in 2013. This is an ambitious plan but potentially achievable – like books and music games are increasingly being bought online. Game’s website is currently advertising Killzone 3 to preorder at £39.99. Whilst I am personally disappointed to have missed Killzones 1 and 2 I am sure that many people will be rushing to complete the trilogy and that more of them will be doing that online, a quick and easy method, than by tearing themselves away from their consoles for the time needed to visit a shop.

So Game (unlike HMV and JJB) is doing well (although it is worth noting that its share price has tumbled from a high of £1.03 in April 2010 to 65p now) but if its strategy is to increase revenue from online sales it is inevitable that revenue from its shops will decline and that stores will close. Game has announced that of its 639 stores at least 85 will be closed over a three year period. The company has just informed 19 stores of impending closure but has not confirmed publicly which stores will be affected.

Game’s landlords are in a better position than JJB’s: Game’s leases tend to be short and presumably the closures will be planned so that they simply vacate at the end of lease terms or buy themselves out of leases where they need to – there will be no imposition of unfavourable CVA terms affecting the landlord’s ability to recover rent and other sums due.

Game has, unsurprisingly, put a positive spin on the closures with statements such as, “This was part of a detailed review to ensure that our stores are in the right locations for our customers” and “Stores should be the physical manifestation of the website, not the other way round” but the fact remains that there will soon be another 85 empty shops in British high streets to add to those vacated by HMV (and possibly JJB) and its hard to see this as anything other than part of a negative, and potentially disastrous, trend.

Author: Chris Alexander

There is still fallout in the investment property market from the effects of the credit crunch which is working its way through the Court system.

In the boom years investment buyers could negotiate significant discounts from developers for bulk off plan purchases many months (or sometimes years) before the properties were built. Keen to take advantage of the perceived discounts offered for such purchases and seemingly confident in the market outlook many of these investment buyers exchanged contracts worth hundreds of thousands of pounds without firm funding arrangements in place to complete the purchases.

Before the contraction in buy-to-let and new build lending this practice was commonplace and many clever (or lucky) investors were either able to obtain funding or agree an immediate onward sale to make a tidy profit with very little capital of their own. The worm well and truly turned in 2007/2008 and many investment buyers got their fingers burnt with no Plan B to turn to.

Once such case recently reached the Court of Appeal, Eminence Property Developments Ltd v Heaney [2010] EWCA Civ 1168. In that case the buyer had contracted to buy 13 properties off plan having paid a 2.5% deposit for each one. Completion had been due on 4 December 2008 but the buyer had failed to complete. As is usual practice the developer served a notice to complete but had miscalculated the appropriate notice period required by the contract. When the buyer still failed to complete the developer then served a notice of rescission, the day before the notice to complete should have expired.

The buyer alleged that this was a repudiatory breach of contract, accepted this breach and treated the contract as at an end. The parties then each claimed and counterclaim for declarations as to their contractual liabilities and at first instance the buyer prevailed. The developer appealed this decision.

The Court of Appeal found in favour of the developer on the basis that it was clear that the developer’s rescission notices did not constitute a repudiatory breach of the contracts. The buyer did not point out the obvious error, but either failed to notice it or else waited to take advantage of it. The Judges concluded that had the developers error been pointed out by the buyer, the rescission notices would have been treated as ineffective and the developer would have waited until the expiry of the notices to complete before deciding whether or not to treat the contracts as being at an end. They thought it was impossible to find an intention by the developer to refuse to perform the contracts, which, in view of the state of the market, had become highly advantageous to the developer and onerous to the buyer.

While this was a gallant attempt on the part of the buyer to escape the consequences of his inability to complete, the Court has elected not to punish a trivial mistake on the part of the developer by allowing the buyer to take advantage and to walk away from its own bad bargain.

Author: Jacqueline Button

Public sector employees worried about their pay and pensions aren’t the only ones affected by the new government’s clamp down on spending.

Property Week reported last month (4/6/10) that on 24 May Whitehall’s Efficiency and Reform Group announced a halt to lease extensions in the current financial year that do not have Treasury approval. The government is also planning to exercise break options which it has this year, including at Eland House, Victoria Street SW1, the 24,200 sq ft headquarters of the Communities and Local Government Department.

A client of ours has had a similar experience – a government department tenant, initially keen to renew their lease have backed out of negotiations and will be relocating to cheaper premises. (Spare a thought for the staff – no pay rise, no pension and forced to work in the back of beyond).

So landlords of public sector bodies must beware – your once star tenants are fading. Check break dates and expiry dates. If any are coming up soon, you may find yourself looking for a new tenant.