Our PROPcast series is back in September for Episode 7 when our subject will be “The Model Commercial Lease – Why it matters and how it can help your next deal”. The Model Commercial Lease has become a widely used industry standard, helping landlords and tenants streamline negotiations and reduce transaction costs. Join us as we explore the latest edition of the MCL, where we’ll outline the benefits of using this industry-standard document, review its position on key issues, and discuss its latest updates. Book your place here.
CMA consulting on including Aldi and Lidl in Groceries Market Investigation (Controlled Land) Order 2010
The Competition and Markets Authority is assessing whether Aldi and/or Lidl meet the criteria to be designated as a Large Grocery Retailer under the Groceries Market Investigation (Controlled Land) Order 2010. The Order stops Large Grocery Retailers from using land agreements to make it harder for rival supermarkets to open nearby e.g. through restrictive covenants and exclusivity agreements. The CMA’s provisional decision is that they both meet the criteria, but is inviting views and feedback until 7 September 2026. More information here: Potential designation of Aldi and Lidl under the Groceries Market Investigation (Controlled Land) Order 2010 - GOV.UK
The Land Registry has recently updated its policy in respect of applications involving overseas entities (OE). Under the law in England and Wales, if an OE is dissolved in its home jurisdiction, any titles registered to it at that point will “escheat” to the Crown (i.e. will be extinguished). The fact that the OE may have been re-constituted, that an opinion letter may say that it is currently incorporated and that the title does not mention any issues will not help. The result is that if the OE has been dissolved in the past, the disposition may not be valid.
The Land Registry has therefore updated its practice guide to note that it can ask for evidence to show that the OE has remained in existence from the date it became registered proprietor to the date that it entered the relevant disposition. That evidence will usually be a certificate from a lawyer qualified in the relevant jurisdiction. This will need to be unqualified and unlimited. We expect the CPSEs to be updated to raise an enquiry dealing with this point in the near future.
A new version of the NPPF has been published, replacing the previous version published in December 2024. Policies are now divided between plan-making and decision making. The government’s aim is that these are clearer and more comprehensive than in previous versions. Some of the key changes, according to the government’s press release are:
Clarifying policies throughout the Framework including setting out more clearly the respective roles of different types of plans
Increasing the ambition of the ‘default yes’ for development around well-connected stations
Updating policies to support increased densities
Recognising the role of strategic sites by creating a consistent and distinct category of sites comprising around 1,500 units or more
The Scottish government has published indicative rates for the Scottish building safety levy ahead of its implementation in April 2028. The full indicative list is available here: Scottish Building Safety Levy: indicative rates - gov.scot and the rates range from £23.17/m2 of chargeable floorspace in Dumfries and Galloway to £48.46/m2 in Edinburgh for greenfield development sites (brownfield sites will benefit from a 50% reduction in levy rates). The Scottish government has also launched a further consultation seeking views on outstanding policy components for the levy, including the methodology used to determine floorspace, options for further exemptions and reliefs, and payment flexibilities for certain development types. The consultation closes on 9 October 2026. Read more here: Scottish building safety levy - technical consultation - Scottish Government consultations - Citizen Space
The Welsh Government has responded to its consultation on EV charging. Andrew Burns shared his thoughts on the response here.
Our Real Estate Disputes team has published various updates this month:
A new LawBite on the ground (f) (redevelopment) related provisions in the Law Commission’s second consultation paper on the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. The Law Commission seeks views on expanding the categories of works that allow a landlord to oppose a business lease renewal under ground (f). A widening of the scope of ground (f) could make it easier for landlords to oppose renewals, but there are some safeguards in place which the Law Commission do not propose removing and which offer significant protection to tenants. Links: Lawbite: Ground (f) reform: will opposing lease renewals become easier? | LinkedIn.
The Code of Practice on Services, Public Functions and Associations (2026) is a new statutory code which provides an updated framework for Equality Act compliance across England, Scotland, and Wales. The code reflects more than a decade of legal developments, including the legalisation of same-sex marriage, case law on the definition of disability and the threshold for a philosophical belief to be protected under the Equality Act 2010 (the “EqA 2010”), as well as the Supreme Court’s judgment on the definition of sex in the EqA 2010. It also incorporates previously separate technical guidance on age discrimination. The Code is intended to ensure greater clarity as to the standards that apply under the EqA 2010. The code applies to service providers, i.e. anyone who provides services, goods, or facilities to the public - whether for payment or free of charge. The code will, therefore, be relevant to retailers such as shops and supermarkets; financial services providers such as banks; and entertainment and leisure providers such as cinemas, theatres, and leisure centres. Links for more information: Lawbite: Service providers on notice: updated statutory equality code now applies | LinkedIn
An update on the case of Dr Nina Dobrovinskaya v British Telecommunications plc [2026] LTS 19 - where the Lands Tribunal for Scotland ordered the removal of telecommunications apparatus installed over a homeowner's property without consent. BT did not provide evidence to justify retaining or altering the apparatus under the statutory test in paragraphs 78-79 of the Electronic Communications Code. The Tribunal therefore ordered removal within 12 weeks and awarded expenses to the applicant. Links: Lawbite: Operator left hanging after order for cable removal | LinkedIn.
A LawBite on the case of MSA Properties Limited v The Drapery Northampton Ltd [2026] EWHC 1420 (KB). The High Court considered the extent to which a landlord can require access to, and temporary vacant possession of, leased premises to carry out substantial structural repairs. The court confirmed that where more than one repair solution is available, a landlord may choose the method it considers appropriate provided the choice is reasonable, while also taking proper account of the tenant's right to quiet enjoyment. Links: Lawbite: Patch or replace? | LinkedIn.
A Lawbite on the Court of Appeal decision which outlawed a business rates box-shifting scheme in the case of The Mayor & Commonality and Citizens of the City of London v (1) 48th Street Holdings Limited (2) Principled Offsite Logistics Limited [2026] EWCA Civ 970. The Court of Appeal held that a business rates mitigation scheme, involving the temporary placement of boxes containing redundant items in vacant commercial premises, did not amount to genuine occupation for non-domestic rating purposes. The court adopted a purposive approach to the legislation, finding that arrangements designed solely to obtain empty property rates relief fell outside the statutory scheme, and overturned earlier authority that had approved such arrangements. Links: Lawbite - box shifting rates schemes in the Court of Appeal | LinkedIn.
The materials on the Eversheds Sutherland website are for general information purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. While reasonable care is taken to ensure accuracy, the materials may not reflect the most current legal developments. Eversheds Sutherland disclaims liability for actions taken based on the materials. Always consult a qualified lawyer for specific legal matters. To view the full disclaimer, see our Terms and Conditions or Disclaimer section in the footer. Eversheds Sutherland is a provider of legal and other services operating through various separate and distinct legal entities. For further information about these entities and Eversheds Sutherlands' structure please see the Legal Notice page of this website.