Tom Weekes KC

Boundary and Ownership Disputes

Tom regularly acts in land ownership disputes (including in registration and adverse possession cases) and in boundary disputes.

He has appeared in cases about the circumstances in which land registers can be altered on the ground of “mistake” including in Quinto v Santiago Castillo Ltd [2009] UKPC 15 (a Privy Council appeal in which the issue was whether an original owner was entitled to be reinstated in a land register as the registered proprietor of land in Belize following a transfer by a fraudster) and Baxter v Mannion [2011] 1 WLR 1594 (a leading Court of Appeal case about the circumstances in which HM Land Register can be altered). In Scribes West Ltd v Relsa Anstalt (No.3) [2005] 1 WLR 1847 the issue was whether a purchaser of the reversion to a lease could forfeit a lease during the “registration gap”.

Tom has appeared in many adverse possession cases for both paper title owners and squatters. In the leading case of Baxter v Mannion [2011] 1 WLR 1965 Tom acted for a paper title owner who had missed the deadline for objecting to an application by a squatter to be registered as the freeholder leading to the registration of the squatter as the freeholder. The Court of Appeal held that the paper title owner was nevertheless entitled to be reinstated as the registered freeholder. In Nata Lee Ltd v Abid [2015] 2 P&CR 3, again acting for the paper title owner, Tom succeeded in the Court of Appeal in establishing that the trial judge had misapplied the law when holding that title to land had been acquired by adverse possession. In Wretham v Ross [2006] 1 P&CR 1259, Tom successfully appeared for a squatter.

He has acted in many boundary disputes, including in the Court of Appeal (Nata Lee Ltd v Abid [2015] 2 P&CR 3 and Steward v Gallop [2011] 1 P&CR 17).

Commercial Landlord and Tenant

Tom acts in all types of commercial landlord and tenant litigation, including cases about:

• Break clauses. Tom frequently acts in disputes about the service of break notices and compliance with break conditions. In MW Trustees Ltd v Telular Corp [2011] L&TR 19, he succeeded in establishing that a landlord had waived defects in a break notice by “accepting” the notice. He appeared in Siemens Hearing Instruments Ltd v Friends Life Ltd [2015] 1 All ER (Comm) 1068, a leading Court of Appeal case about the need for strict compliance with break conditions.
  
  
• Rent reviews. In Lancecrest Ltd v Asiwaju [2005] L&TR 22 Tom succeeded in establishing in the Court of Appeal that a rent review notice served after the deadline in the lease was valid. Recently, he has acted in cases about the index-linking of rent.
  
  
• Lease renewals. Tom has appeared in unopposed lease renewals relating to leases of all kinds of premises (including retail units, warehouses, and offices). And he has appeared in opposed lease renewals in which the landlord has relied on grounds (f) or (g). He has also acted in cases about the quantification of statutory compensation.
  
  
• Dilapidations. Tom has represented landlords and tenants in disrepair cases concerning all kinds of properties (including offices, warehouses, farm buildings, hotels, pubs, and factories). Most have been terminal dilapidations claims. However, he has also acted on cases seeking orders for specific performance of repair obligations during the term.
  
  
• Forfeiture. Tom appeared in Pirabarkaran v Patel [2006] 1 WLR 3112 (whether mixed-use premises could be forfeited by peaceable re-entry) and Scribes West Ltd v Relsa Anstalt (No.3) [2005] 1 WLR 1847 (whether a purchaser of the reversion could forfeit a lease during the “registration gap”).

Conveyancing Disputes

Tom has acted in many cases in which purchasers have attempted to avoid buying land, or rescinding the purchase of land, under contracts of sale. Those cases include: Bella Italia Restaurants Ltd v Stane Park Ltd [2019] EWHC 2747 (Ch) (whether a contractual obligation to grant a lease can be performed by procuring the grant of a lease by someone else), Chinnock v Hocaoglu [2008] 29 EG 92 (late tender of purchase price) and Wyche v Singla Properties Ltd (2011). In Mann & Mann v Cooper the issue was whether a firm of solicitors had been authorised to enter into a contract of sale on behalf of purchasers. In Starham Ltd v Greene King Pubs Ltd [2017] 9 WLUK 422 the issue was whether a nineteenth century conveyance created a licence or easement.

Easements and Profits a Prendre

As the co-author of Rights of Light: The Modern Law (2015, 3rd edition), Tom has acted on many rights of light cases. He frequently advises on the interpretation of rights of light deeds; he has acted in cases concerning whether rights of light have been extinguished or breached; and he acted for a housebuilder in a negligence action against a firm of rights of light surveyors. In Pavledes v Hadjisavva [2013] 2 EGLR 123 David Richards J gave guidance about the availability of declaratory relief in respect of a development that would infringe a neighbour’s rights of light. In Starham Ltd v Greene King Pubs Ltd [2017] 9 WLUK 422 the issue was whether a nineteenth century conveyance created a licence or easement.

Land Registration and Adverse Possession

Tom regularly acts in land ownership disputes, including cases about land registration and adverse possession.

He has appeared in cases about the circumstances in which land registers can be altered on the ground of “mistake”: including Quinto v Santiago Castillo Ltd [2009] UKPC 15 (a Privy Council appeal about whether an original owner was entitled to be reinstated as the registered proprietor of land in Belize following a transfer by a fraudster) and Baxter v Mannion [2011] 1 WLR 1594 (a leading Court of Appeal case about the circumstances in which HM Land Register can be altered). In Scribes West Ltd v Relsa Anstalt (No.3) [2005] 1 WLR 1847 the issue was whether a purchaser of the reversion to a lease could forfeit a lease during the “registration gap”.

Tom has appeared in adverse possession cases for both paper title owners and squatters. In the leading case of Baxter v Mannion [2011] 1 WLR 1965 Tom acted for a paper title owner who had missed the deadline for objecting to an application by a squatter to be registered as the freeholder leading to the registration of the alleged squatter as the freeholder. The Court of Appeal held that the paper title owner was nevertheless entitled to be reinstated as the registered freeholder. In Nata Lee Ltd v Abid [2015] 2 P&CR 3, again acting for the paper title owner, Tom succeeded in the Court of Appeal in establishing that the trial judge had misapplied the law when holding that title to land had been acquired by adverse possession. In Wretham v Ross [2006] 1 P&CR 1259, Tom successfully appeared for a squatter.

Mortgages, Charges, Charging Orders and Securitisation

Tom has appeared in many cases concerning mortgages and charges. In HSBC v Collelldevall [2010] 1 P&CR 4 the issue was whether an occupier’s beneficial interest under a constructive trust was an overriding interest, and, if so, whether that interest was overreached by a mortgage. In Garwood v Bank of Scotland [2013] BPIR 450 the issue was whether a mortgagee was entitled to set aside the discharge of a mortgage on the ground of mistake. Tomkins v Bristol & West Investments [2006] EWCA 977 was an appeal to the Court of Appeal from a committal order made against a mortgagor who had failed to comply with an injunction obtained by a mortgagee.

Private nuisance

Tom succeeded in the Supreme Court in the leading modern case about nuisance (Fearn v Tate Gallery [2024] AC 1). In that groundbreaking decision, the Supreme Court held that the Tate Gallery had committed a nuisance by operating a viewing gallery in a way that interfered with the amenity of neighbouring flats. He acts in the full range of nuisance cases (including cases about noise, vibrations, smells, light and protestors). Some of Tom’s cases have concerned nuisance in a landlord and tenant context.

Professional Negligence Claim Related to Property

Tom has acted in many property-related professional negligence disputes. He represented Berkeley Homes in a negligence claim against a right of light surveyor concerning advice given by that surveyor about a substantial development in the City of London. He has acted on claims arising from negligently-drafted overage provisions. And he has acted in several claims against solicitors arising from a negligent failure to serve valid break notices.

Rights of Light

As the co-author of Rights of Light: The Modern Law (Jordans, 2015, 3rd ed), Tom has acted on many rights of light cases. He frequently advises on the interpretation of rights of light deeds; he has acted in cases about whether rights of light have been extinguished or breached; and he acted for a housebuilder in a negligence action against a firm of rights of light surveyors. In Pavledes v Hadjisavva [2013] 2 EGLR 123 David Richards J gave guidance about the availability of declaratory relief in respect of a development that would infringe a neighbour’s rights of light. In Handston Investments Ltd v Abri Group Ltd [2024] EWHC 3523 (Ch) Tom succeeded in resisting an application for an interim injunction that would have infringed rights of light.

Property Development including Overage disputes

Tom is a leading specialist in disputes about the development of land, including litigation about:

• Development agreements. Many of Tom’s cases concern development agreements. He is currently acting in several cases in which developers are attempting to escape from contracts to buy development sites. In June 2023, he appeared in an arbitration in which a developer argued that it had terminated an agreement for the purchase of a site for £17m.
  
• Restrictive Covenants. Tom has appeared in cases about:
  • The enforceability of restrictive covenants. In Bath Rugby Ltd v Greenwood [2023] 1 P&CR 6 he successfully represented Bath Rugby in a leading Court of Appeal authority about the annexation of the benefit of covenants to land which established that Bath Rugby’s stadium is not subject to restrictive covenants that might have impeded the construction of a new stadium.
  • The interpretation of restrictive covenants. In Dennis v Davies [2010] 1 EGLR 81 Court of Appeal held that a restrictive covenant prohibiting causing a “nuisance or annoyance” could be breached by an extension to a house which blocked an attractive view of a river.
  • Grants of consents for developments under restrictive covenants. In Zakaim v Hampstead Garden Suburb Trust [2020] he succeeded in establishing a refusal of consent had been reasonable. In the leading case of Shebelle Enterprises Ltd v Hampstead Garden Suburb Trust Ltd [2014] 2 P&CR 6, he succeeded in the Court of Appeal in establishing that, when granting an application for consent for a development under an estate management scheme, an estate enjoyed a statutory defence to a claim that it was liable to a tenant affected by the proposed development under the covenant of quiet enjoyment.
  • The discharge/modification of restrictive covenants under s.84(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 (including, Re Clearwater Properties Ltd [2013] UKUT 0210 (LC), Re Stanborough’s Application [2012] UKUT 21 (LC), Re Zenios [2011] EWCA Civ 1645 (CA), Re Surana’s Application [2016] UKUT 368 (LC), Re University of Chester’s Application [2016] UKUT 457 (LC], Re Falmouth Dock [2017] UKUT 430 (LC), Re Theodossiades’ Application [2017] UKUT 0461, Blue Angel Properties Ltd v Jenner [2020] UKUT 360 (UT) and Nathwani v Kivlehan [2021] UKUT 84 (LC)).

• Rights of light. As the co-author of Rights of Light: The Modern Law (2015, 3rd edition)), Tom has acted on many rights of light cases. He frequently advises on the interpretation of rights of light deeds; he has acted in cases concerning whether rights of light have been extinguished or breached; and he acted for a housebuilder in a negligence action against a firm of rights of light surveyors. In Pavledes v Hadjisavva [2013] 2 EGLR 123 David Richards J gave guidance about the availability of declaratory relief in respect of a development that would infringe a neighbour’s rights of light.

• Estate Management Schemes. Tom has acted for many of the estates with estate management schemes created under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 or the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. He represented Hampstead Garden Suburb Trust in the Court of Appeal in Re Zenios [2011] EWCA Civ 1645 which concerned the interaction between the planning system and an estate management scheme.

• Overage. Tom has successfully acted for sellers of development sites in preventing developers avoiding paying overage in reliance on perceived loopholes in the drafting of overage provisions. In Sparks v Biden [2017] EWHC 1994 (Ch), in which overage was payable on the “sale” of the houses (defined as being a sale of the freehold or the grant of a long lease), the Court implied a term into the agreement requiring the developer had to “sell” the houses within a reasonable time (rather than let the houses under ASTs). In Renewal v Lowry [2010] EWHC 290 (Ch), in which the “trigger” for the calculation and payment of overage was the sale of the last house on a development, the Court implied term requiring the purchaser to complete and sell the houses as soon as reasonably practicable.

• Party Walls. Tom has appeared in leading party wall cases. In Freetown v Assethold [2013] 1 WLR 7012 the Court of Appeal held that the time for appealing against a party wall award ran, not from the date on which the award was dispatched into the post, but from the date on which the award was delivered (or deemed to have been delivered). In Knight v Goulandris [2018] 1 WLR 334 the Court of Appeal held that, even before the amendment to s.15 of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996 which expressly permitted service of documents by email, it was possible to serve documents by email. In Mustapha v Zafrani (2013) Ramsay J held that, even after time for appealing had expired, the Court had jurisdiction to substitute the correct respondent to an appeal from a party wall award in place of a wrongly-named respondent.

Riparian Rights, Watercourses and Harbours

Tom has appeared in many cases about riparian rights and watercourses (including boundary disputes; a case about whether a licence was required to moor boats on a canal; and a case about whether it is possible to have a tenancy of a houseboat).

Trusts of Land and other Equitable Claims

Tom has been instructed in many disputes about the beneficial ownership of property and proprietary estoppel. In Hermsen Wilkinson v Hermsen (2015) he succeeded for a mother in a hotly-contested dispute with her daughter over the beneficial ownership of flat in Kensington. In HSBC Bank Plc v Dyche [2010] BPIR 138 he obtained a finding that a father had retained the beneficial ownership of his house after transferring the house to his daughter to enable her to obtain a mortgage and that his beneficial interest had priority to that mortgage. In Young v Lauretani [2007] 2 FLR 1211 Tom successfully acted in a dispute over the beneficial interest between former boyfriend and girlfriend.

Village Greens, Commons and Manorial Rights

Tom has acted in several cases about the registration of manorial rights and commons.