Liam Spender
@liamspender.bsky.social
Lawyer. Also likes photography, which you can see at https://www.liamspender.com
The beneficial owner of the building is the ARC Time Freehold Income Authorised Fund. Freehold Managers (Nominees) is a trustee holding on bare trust because NatWest Trustee & Depositary Services is the fund’s Depositary for real assets.
October 29, 2025 at 6:58 PM
The beneficial owner of the building is the ARC Time Freehold Income Authorised Fund. Freehold Managers (Nominees) is a trustee holding on bare trust because NatWest Trustee & Depositary Services is the fund’s Depositary for real assets.
A freeholder appeal is inevitable. A lot to digest in the 167 pages.
October 24, 2025 at 12:07 PM
A freeholder appeal is inevitable. A lot to digest in the 167 pages.
Today isn’t a surprising or disappointing result. Everything that matters is yet to be decided.
January 30, 2025 at 10:04 PM
Today isn’t a surprising or disappointing result. Everything that matters is yet to be decided.
And whatever happens in July probably won't be the last word on this. Whoever loses will probably seek permission to appeal. This will most likely go on for some time.
January 30, 2025 at 6:59 PM
And whatever happens in July probably won't be the last word on this. Whoever loses will probably seek permission to appeal. This will most likely go on for some time.
We were not expecting any further movement on the measures being challenged until consultations opened in the summer in any event.
The trial therefore poses no reason to delay those consultations.
The trial therefore poses no reason to delay those consultations.
January 30, 2025 at 6:59 PM
We were not expecting any further movement on the measures being challenged until consultations opened in the summer in any event.
The trial therefore poses no reason to delay those consultations.
The trial therefore poses no reason to delay those consultations.
Generally the courts defer to the government and Parliament, particularly where challenges are made to Acts of Parliament.
Freeholders have challenged every attempt made since 1967 to reform leasehold as an infringement of their human rights. They have lost every time.
Freeholders have challenged every attempt made since 1967 to reform leasehold as an infringement of their human rights. They have lost every time.
January 30, 2025 at 6:59 PM
Generally the courts defer to the government and Parliament, particularly where challenges are made to Acts of Parliament.
Freeholders have challenged every attempt made since 1967 to reform leasehold as an infringement of their human rights. They have lost every time.
Freeholders have challenged every attempt made since 1967 to reform leasehold as an infringement of their human rights. They have lost every time.
Annington dropped out of these judicial review proceedings, accepting a buy out rather than roll the dice on continuing with litigation.
That may perhaps be a valuable insight as to how the freeholders really view their chances in this case.
That may perhaps be a valuable insight as to how the freeholders really view their chances in this case.
January 30, 2025 at 6:59 PM
Annington dropped out of these judicial review proceedings, accepting a buy out rather than roll the dice on continuing with litigation.
That may perhaps be a valuable insight as to how the freeholders really view their chances in this case.
That may perhaps be a valuable insight as to how the freeholders really view their chances in this case.
One such example is that the 8th freeholder in this case -- Annington -- in 2023 lost a judicial review attempting to stop the government from acquiring the freeholds to the Married Quarters Estate.
Annington got permission but lost on every point at trial.
Annington got permission but lost on every point at trial.
January 30, 2025 at 6:59 PM
One such example is that the 8th freeholder in this case -- Annington -- in 2023 lost a judicial review attempting to stop the government from acquiring the freeholds to the Married Quarters Estate.
Annington got permission but lost on every point at trial.
Annington got permission but lost on every point at trial.
The government will have the opportunity to answer the bottom feeders with their own expert evidence and their own justification for enacting the changes.
Only around half of judicial reviews that get permission to proceed actually succeed at trial.
Only around half of judicial reviews that get permission to proceed actually succeed at trial.
January 30, 2025 at 6:59 PM
The government will have the opportunity to answer the bottom feeders with their own expert evidence and their own justification for enacting the changes.
Only around half of judicial reviews that get permission to proceed actually succeed at trial.
Only around half of judicial reviews that get permission to proceed actually succeed at trial.
The "rights" in question have always been subject to statute and statutes can change.
January 30, 2025 at 6:59 PM
The "rights" in question have always been subject to statute and statutes can change.
Ditto the abolition of marriage value. Again, this is a right given to freeholders in 1993 with an arbitrary cut-off of 80 years, primarily to stop hereditary peers (who then sat in the House of Lords) from blocking the law.
January 30, 2025 at 6:59 PM
Ditto the abolition of marriage value. Again, this is a right given to freeholders in 1993 with an arbitrary cut-off of 80 years, primarily to stop hereditary peers (who then sat in the House of Lords) from blocking the law.
And given the legal argument is over a valuation system created by statute in 1993, it is hard to see why changing the rules to move to fixed variables for calculating the cost of lease extension instead of variables made up by freeholders' pet surveyors is a deprivation of private property.
January 30, 2025 at 6:59 PM
And given the legal argument is over a valuation system created by statute in 1993, it is hard to see why changing the rules to move to fixed variables for calculating the cost of lease extension instead of variables made up by freeholders' pet surveyors is a deprivation of private property.
And the part about requiring proof is important. At the trial in July it will be up to the bottom feeders, for the first time, to prove their points about billions in damages.
It is easy to throw around large numbers but much harder to prove them in a trial.
It is easy to throw around large numbers but much harder to prove them in a trial.
January 30, 2025 at 6:59 PM
And the part about requiring proof is important. At the trial in July it will be up to the bottom feeders, for the first time, to prove their points about billions in damages.
It is easy to throw around large numbers but much harder to prove them in a trial.
It is easy to throw around large numbers but much harder to prove them in a trial.
This is entirely unsurprising.
Bottom-feeding freeholders have emphasised (without yet being required to prove) that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act is causing them (or will cause them) billions in loss.
Bottom-feeding freeholders have emphasised (without yet being required to prove) that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act is causing them (or will cause them) billions in loss.
January 30, 2025 at 6:59 PM
This is entirely unsurprising.
Bottom-feeding freeholders have emphasised (without yet being required to prove) that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act is causing them (or will cause them) billions in loss.
Bottom-feeding freeholders have emphasised (without yet being required to prove) that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act is causing them (or will cause them) billions in loss.
This does not mean the bottom feeders "win" or that their arguments are "good".
All it means is that the judge was persuaded that they had a case good enough to go to trial.
Trial is due in July 2025.
All it means is that the judge was persuaded that they had a case good enough to go to trial.
Trial is due in July 2025.
January 30, 2025 at 6:59 PM
This does not mean the bottom feeders "win" or that their arguments are "good".
All it means is that the judge was persuaded that they had a case good enough to go to trial.
Trial is due in July 2025.
All it means is that the judge was persuaded that they had a case good enough to go to trial.
Trial is due in July 2025.
A1P1 applies to both legal and natural persons, so companies can claim that right too.
January 30, 2025 at 6:57 PM
A1P1 applies to both legal and natural persons, so companies can claim that right too.
8/8 Equally the High Court could refuse permission because the government has yet to lay out all of the detail of the provisions the freeholders are challenging.
We await the result with interest.
We await the result with interest.
January 29, 2025 at 10:17 AM
8/8 Equally the High Court could refuse permission because the government has yet to lay out all of the detail of the provisions the freeholders are challenging.
We await the result with interest.
We await the result with interest.
7/8 I would not be surprised if permission is granted today, but that would not mean the case is bound to succeed later.
Annington got permission to bring a judicial review against the government that it then went on to lose (badly) at trial.
Annington got permission to bring a judicial review against the government that it then went on to lose (badly) at trial.
January 29, 2025 at 10:17 AM
7/8 I would not be surprised if permission is granted today, but that would not mean the case is bound to succeed later.
Annington got permission to bring a judicial review against the government that it then went on to lose (badly) at trial.
Annington got permission to bring a judicial review against the government that it then went on to lose (badly) at trial.
6/8 It is worth noting that today is not a trial of the bottom feeders' case. It is a hearing to decide whether they can argue their case at a later trial.
Most judicial reviews fail at this stage. Only about half of those that proceed to trial succeed.
Most judicial reviews fail at this stage. Only about half of those that proceed to trial succeed.
January 29, 2025 at 10:17 AM
6/8 It is worth noting that today is not a trial of the bottom feeders' case. It is a hearing to decide whether they can argue their case at a later trial.
Most judicial reviews fail at this stage. Only about half of those that proceed to trial succeed.
Most judicial reviews fail at this stage. Only about half of those that proceed to trial succeed.
5/8 The 7 left standing include Long Harbour, Wallace Partnership Trust, the ARC Time Freehold Income Fund, Cadogan Estate, Grosvenor Estate, Portal Trust and John Lyon's Charity.
And I am sure most of their leaseholders would describe them as worthy paragons of virtue.
And I am sure most of their leaseholders would describe them as worthy paragons of virtue.
January 29, 2025 at 10:17 AM
5/8 The 7 left standing include Long Harbour, Wallace Partnership Trust, the ARC Time Freehold Income Fund, Cadogan Estate, Grosvenor Estate, Portal Trust and John Lyon's Charity.
And I am sure most of their leaseholders would describe them as worthy paragons of virtue.
And I am sure most of their leaseholders would describe them as worthy paragons of virtue.