Commercial Disputes Weekly – Issue 270 27 January 2026

Landlord and tenant
The Court of Appeal has upheld a lower court decision that mixed use premises qualified as a ‘dwelling’ under section 38 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The property, Unit 6, Priory House consisted of a suite of rooms in a converted Victorian convent that included a kitchen and shower room. It was currently being used as storage and the lease provided that it should be used for “Offices (and ancillary residential use)”. The court held that it was not precluded from being a dwelling by the fact that it was let predominantly for office use and subordinately for residential use. The legislation was clear when provisions applied to purely residential properties and when it applied to mixed use. The outcome of it being a dwelling was that certain statutory protection applied in relation to service charges.

Cloisters Business Centre Management Company Ltd v Anvari and another [2026] EWCA Civ 17, 21 January 2026

Aviation
A lessor has been granted summary judgment for rent plus interest and costs due under an aircraft lease. The lease was terminated due to non-payment of basic rent. Disputes also arose as to whether the lessee had redelivered the aircraft in accordance with the terms of the lease. The judge rejected an argument that the relationship was governed by the terms of an LOI and then by the lease where it was inconsistent with the LOI. The judge held that the LOI did not have any legal effect beyond confidentiality and initial deposit provisions. Further the lease did not contain an implied term that the lessor should agree to any sublease. That would have been in direct contradiction with the express lease term that gave the lessor the absolute right to refuse any sublease. The court held that the lessee was estopped from arguing that the aircraft was not delivered and that no rent was payable where it had been using the aircraft and paying rent for many months, notwithstanding that it was already aware of the alleged defects in the aircraft. Summary judgment was granted in the lessor’s favour (although part of the lessee’s counterclaim was allowed to continue).

Rostrum Leasing 1 DAC v MAE Aircraft Management WLL [2026] EWHC 57 (Comm), 15 January 2026

Adjudication
In the first decision on this point, the Technology and Construction Court has dealt with the question of whether an assignee of a contract may commence an adjudication in respect of a dispute under the contract. The contract (in JCT Minor Works Building Contract 2016 form) was originally between Office Depot International (UK) Limited (“ODI”) and FK Facades Limited (“FK”) for remedial works for a roof installation at a commercial property in Greater Manchester. ODI subsequently assigned its rights under that contract to OT Group Ltd, which further assigned them to Paragon Group Limited (“Paragon”). Paragon, as assignee claimed that FK was in culpable delay under the contract, terminated the contract and sought liquidated damages from FK that FK refused to pay. Paragon commenced an adjudication and the adjudicator decided the dispute in Paragon’s favour. The judge held that as a matter of interpretation of the adjudication Scheme and the contract, there was no suggestion that the right to adjudicate could not extend to assignees of the original parties.

Paragon Group Ltd v FK Facades Ltd [2026] EWHC 78 (TCC), 20 January 2026

See our Insights Hub for a more detailed article on the judgment.

Agency
The Supreme Court has ordered that an appeal be allowed following agreement of the parties. The Court of Appeal had found against Expert Tooling who used energy supplied by Engie but was also charged for commission paid by Engie to the broker. Expert Tooling had claimed recovery of the commission from Engie. The Court of Appeal held that the broker was in breach of duty in not obtaining informed consent from Expert Tooling. However Expert Tooling was unsuccessful in its bribery claim because the court held that the commission was “half secret”. Expert Tooling was given permission to appeal to the Supreme Court but a decision of the Supreme Court in Hopcraft v Close Brothers Ltd [2025] UKSC 33 led to the parties agreeing that Expert Tooling’s appeal was bound to succeed. The Supreme Court has ordered that the appeal be allowed.

Expert Tooling and Automation Limited v Engie Power Limited (UKSC/2025/0055)