UK Real Estate Round Up February 2026

Training

Our PROPcast series started again in February. Episode 1 was “Planning for change: The new Planning and Infrastructure Act and NPPF reform - what you need to know” with Paul Maile, Head of Planning and Infrastructure Consenting. If you missed it you can watch or listen back here.

PROPcast Episode 2 is at 10 a.m. on 17 March when our subject will be: Staying Out of Trouble – Financial Crime in the Real Estate Sector.  In this session Steve Smith, defender and investigator, will outline the criminal risk areas for all those dealing with real estate in the UK, highlighting what individuals need to do, and what organisations should have in place to stay on the right side of the law.  Sign up for the PROPcast here.

Our Real Estate Dispute Resolution team are hosting a training day on 17 March on “the Telecoms Site Lifecycle” at our London office. The session is designed for landowners to understand the impact of telecoms from the very first operator approach through to equipment removal. Across the day, the team will explore the full lifecycle of telecoms arrangements, offering practical insights and best practice guidance on the issues that matter most to landowners. You can find out more and register to attend here.

Legal Updates

Building Safety Act 2022

“Higher risk building” in England: 18m or seven+ storeys high and two or more residential units
“Relevant building” in England: 11m or five+ storeys high and two or more dwellings

Grenfell Inquiry Progress Report

The government has published its first Grenfell Tower Inquiry Government Annual Report on the implementation of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 recommendations. Of the 61 recommendations made by the Inquiry, 49 are in progress and 12 are complete, according to the Report. The government confirms in the Report that it is taking forward “a programme of significant reform to strengthen the construction products framework” and has also published a White Paper on construction products reform.

Landlord and Tenant

Renters' Rights Act 2025

The BPF has published guidance on the Renters’ Rights Act including a template form of assured periodic tenancy.  Government guidance on a number of points remains outstanding and the government has pledged to publish information in March on:

• the new information sheet to be given to tenants
• new possession claim forms
• how landlords should let student tenants know if they intend to rely on Ground 4A to regain possession

The government has also published explanatory notes accompanying the Renters Rights Act, which go through the Act section by section offering guidance and explanation about its intended aims and application.

Scotland

The Building Safety Levy (Scotland) Bill completed stage 2 of the legislative process in Scotland earlier this month and has now been republished as amended after stage 2. You can see here the Bill as amended. There is no date as yet for stage 3, but as the election approaches bills are moving forward quickly and stage 3 is therefore likely to be scheduled fairly soon.

Tax

LTT – draft regulations increasing minimum MDR rate and refund of higher resi rates properties let to local authorities

The Welsh government has published a written statement including draft regulations increasing the minimum rate under multiple dwellings relief, and a separate statement containing draft regulations introducing a refund of the higher residential rates for properties subsequently leased to local authorities. The minimum rate payable under MDR will be increased from 1% to 3% for transactions with an effective date on or after 13 February 2026 (subject to transitional provisions).

Other

Execution of deeds: statutory presumption of due execution under section 44(5) of CA 2006 (Court of Appeal)

In South Bank Hotel Management Co Ltd v Galliard Hotels Ltd [2026], the Court of Appeal considered the circumstances under which the statutory presumption in section 44(5) of the Companies Act 2006 applies. Section 44(5) provides that, in favour of a purchaser, a document is deemed to have been duly executed by a company if it purports to be signed in accordance with the requirements in that subsection.  The court found that only a "purchaser" satisfying the requirements of the section could invoke the presumption i.e. “a purchaser in good faith for valuable consideration [including] a lessee, mortgagee or other person who for valuable consideration acquires an interest in property”. The section did not apply automatically for all purposes where its requirements were met, and a counterparty could not therefore avail itself of the presumption where the "purchaser" had no wish to do so.

The Court of Appeal has considered whether a lease between the first defendant company (D1) and its subsidiary (D4), and an underlease of the same property between D4 and the claimant, had been validly executed as deeds under section 44(2) of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006). Although purportedly signed by the parties' company secretary and their sole director (D2), neither document had in fact been signed by D2 personally. Instead, an employee had written D2's name on the documents at his instruction.

Holding that the documents were not validly executed, the court reversed the trial judge's finding that they were deemed duly executed under the statutory presumption in section 44(5) of the CA 2006. The court's findings included that:

• Section 44(5) operated in favour of a purchaser, meaning that only a purchaser could invoke the section. D4 could not therefore avail itself of the provision in respect of the underlease when the claimant had no wish to do so. The court considered the section conferred a privilege on purchasers satisfying certain conditions rather than specifying circumstances in which there would be an automatic deeming of due execution on which any party could rely.
• The purchaser under each document was not "in good faith" within the meaning of section 44(5) because D2, as sole director of all three corporate parties, knew that he had not personally signed the documents, and this knowledge was attributable to the companies. Section 44(5) was intended to protect purchasers who did not know that the position was otherwise than it purported to be, and the court could see no reason why it should extend to a case where a purchaser knew that the appearance did not correspond to the reality. While in the circumstances, there was no need to decide whether mere notice of a defect in execution would prevent the presumption applying, the court doubted that it would.

The court also found that the claimant was not estopped from denying the documents' validity. While there was a principle that parties to a lease are estopped from denying the landlord's title, this did not prevent a party from challenging the document on a different basis, namely that it was not duly executed.

Articles and Publications

We are pleased share a snapshot of some of our deal highlights from Winter 2025: Real Estate Deals - Winter 2025.

From our Real Estate Dispute Resolution team:

• A new LawBite on the Edgewater (Stevenage) Limited & Ors v Grey GR Limited Partnership [2026] UKUT 18 (LC) decision, where the Upper Tribunal dismissed an appeal against the Vista Tower Remediation Contribution Order (RCO). This decision clarifies key points under the Building Safety Act 2022, and offers a reminder that the First Tier tribunal’s jurisdiction when determining whether it is “just and equitable” to make RCOs is very wide. Read on LinkedIn here; read on our website here
  
  
• Revaluation of rateable values for business properties and statutory compensation: which looks at the impact that the upcoming revaluation of rateable values will have on compensation calculations under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. With changes taking effect in April 2026, the timing of notices will be more important than ever. Read on LinkedIn or on our website.
  
  
• Lillystone v Bradgate Education Partnership [2025] EWHC 3341 (KB) – where the court considered a claim under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 and Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984. The court found that the respondent had not owed the appellant a duty under the 1957 Act or 1984 Act. The appellant’s injury had been caused as a result of his choice to adopt the dangerous manoeuvre of climbing a gate onto the respondent’s property: Read on our website or read on LinkedIn
  
  
• Arbitration No 1 of 2025 [2026] CSOH 2 – where the Scottish Court of Session considered whether a tenant could raise new arguments to support its case when appealing an Arbitrator’s draft award. The tenant had appealed an Arbitrator’s draft award made following a dispute about the landlord’s dilapidations claim. The Court considered whether the tenant could introduce – during the appeal – arguments that had not been put to the arbitrator. In particular, the tenant wanted to raise an interesting point about the landlord ability to enforce the repairing obligation in its lease where the landlord was itself in breach of its lease obligations: Read on our website or read on LinkedIn
  
  
• Southern Housing v Mr James Emmanuel [2025] EWCC 58 – where the court confirmed that, whilst it can order a tenant to allow its landlord entry to its home to carry out safety checks or repairs, it has no power to permit a landlord to force entry: Read on our website or read on LinkedIn

Our Real Estate Dispute Resolution team’s horizon scanning podcast is available on LinkedIn and on Apple & Spotify.

Paul Beausang, Charlie Stodell and Rebekka Sandwell from our Tax team have written in Taxation on the Court of Appeal’s recent judgment in the SDLT case of The Tower One St George Wharf Limited v HMRC. You can read more here on LinkedIn.