Property Tenure in England: Freehold, Leasehold & Share of Freehold

When searching for a new home in England and Wales, you will inevitably come across three key tenure types listed on property portals: Freehold, Leasehold, and Share of Freehold. While location, bedrooms, and layout often dominate a buyer’s initial focus, understanding the legal ownership structure is equally crucial to protecting your financial and legal interests.

Your legal tenure dictates not only what you actually own, but also your long-term ongoing costs, maintenance responsibilities, structural freedom, and even your ability to secure a mortgage. Below, our specialist conveyancing team outlines the key legal differences to help you navigate your purchase with confidence.

Written by Wilson Chan, Senior Conveyancing Paralegal

Freehold: Outright Absolute Ownership

Buying a Freehold property means you purchase both the building and the land it stands on outright, with no time limit on ownership. The title is registered at HM Land Registry under your name, giving you complete legal control over the property subject to local planning permission and statutory controls.

Freehold status is standard for most detached and semi-detached houses. From a conveyancing perspective, freeholds are generally straightforward, as there are no landlord approvals required, no ongoing lease terms to monitor, and no monthly service charges or ground rents payable to a third party.

Leasehold: Ownership for a Fixed Term

With a Leasehold property, you buy the right to occupy the property for a fixed period (defined in a legal agreement called the Lease), but you do not own the land or the structural building itself. Most flats, maisonettes, and some newer houses are sold as leasehold.

The underlying land and common structure remain owned by the Freeholder (or landlord). Key considerations when buying leasehold include:

Lease Length: As time passes, the remaining years on the lease decrease. A lease under 80 years can severely impact property value, incur high extension costs, and make securing a mortgage difficult.
Ground Rent: An annual fee paid to the landlord for occupying the land. Under the Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022, ground rent for new qualifying residential leases in England and Wales is capped at a “peppercorn” (effectively zero). However, older existing leases may still feature historical ground rent charges, including escalation/review clauses that require careful legal scrutiny.
Service Charges & Management: Leaseholders pay annual fees to cover building insurance, communal repair, and maintenance managed by the landlord or a managing agent.
Lease Covenants: Leases contain specific regulations regarding pet ownership, assignment and subletting, structural alterations, and flooring.

Share of Freehold: Collaborative Control

Share of Freehold combines leasehold occupation with joint legal ownership of the freehold title. This usually occurs when flat owners within a block collectively purchase the freehold or when a building is converted into flats.

In this arrangement, you hold a leasehold title for your individual flat alongside a share in the freehold company (or name on the freehold title deed). This gives leaseholders direct control over building maintenance, management budgets, and lease term extensions without paying high landlord extension fees.

Feature	Freehold	Leasehold	Share of Freehold
Land Ownership	Outright ownership of land & building	Owned by third-party landlord	Jointly owned with co-freeholders
Duration	Indefinite (In perpetuity)	Fixed term (e.g., 90, 125, 999 yrs)	Lease underlying + joint freehold
Ongoing Fees	None (except personal utilities/repairs)	Service charges, management fees	Shared maintenance costs (no landlord profit)
Control & Works	Full control (subject to planning)	Landlord consent required	Agreed collaboratively among owners

Key Legal Checklist Before Making an Offer

Identify property tenure: check with the estate agent so as to obtain an accurate quote and initial advice from your solicitor. The process time for different tenures would be a bit different but usually not longer than 4 months in most occasions (unless it is chain transaction).
Check Unexpired Lease Term: Always verify remaining lease length with the estate agent upfront. Aim for properties with 90+ years (or ideally 125+ years) to avoid costly lease extension procedures later.
Review Ground rent and Ongoing Service Charges: Ask to inspect ground rent figure and recent management accounts and service charge statements to understand annual outgoings.
Identify Maintenance Reserves: For flats, inquire whether a “sinking fund” / “reserve fund” exists for major future works (e.g., roof or lift repairs).
Consult Your Conveyancer Early: Instructing your solicitor early ensures crucial lease terms, restrictive covenants, and management packs are thoroughly scrutinised before exchange of contracts.

Ready to Proceed? Get a Conveyancing Quote

Whether you’re buying freehold, leasehold, or a share of freehold, our fees and process vary depending on tenure. Get a tailored, no-obligation conveyancing quote today, or speak to a solicitor about your specific transaction.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call our office on 020 7928 0276, we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on [email protected].

Or, use the contact form on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/contact/

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.

James Cook

See Full Bio

Welcome Marco

It gives us great pleasure to welcome Marco Ngan to the firm, a recent law graduate from Durham University.

Prior to joining the firm, Marco had internship and mini-pupillage experiences in the UK, Hong Kong, and Shanghai, enabling him to gain valuable insights into different legal systems.

Marco is fluent in English, Cantonese, and Mandarin.

In his spare time, Marco likes to both play and watch football. He also enjoys travelling around the UK and Europe to explore different cultures.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call our office on 020 7928 0276, we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on [email protected].

Or, use the contact form on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/contact/

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.

James Cook

See Full Bio

Could You Get Married on the Beach? Government Consultation Could Change Wedding Law

Traditionally, couples in England and Wales have been relatively restricted in their choice of wedding venues, largely being limited to getting married in a church or perhaps a town hall. Like many things, the cost of weddings has sky-rocketed, with the average wedding totalling over £20,000, and therefore becoming prohibitive for many couples. Current wedding law dates back to the 18^th and 19^th centuries, highlighting their lack of suitability for the 21^st century.

However, this could soon be about to change. In July 2026, the government launched a public consultation on the biggest overhaul of weddings law in almost 200 years. The proposals included in this consultation would make it easier for couples to get married by expanding the array of venues where wedding ceremonies can take place. If implemented, this would allow couples to marry in a forest, a beach, a castle, or even a family garden, moving away from a buildings-based approach to weddings.

What is the current law?

Under the current law, weddings in England and Wales can only take place, with very few exceptions, in a register office, a registered place of worship, or a venue specifically approved for civil ceremonies. This is a buildings-based system: it is the venue that is licensed, not the person conducting the ceremony, which is why outdoor or unconventional locations have largely been off the table.

The rules also draw a firm line between religious and civil ceremonies. Only religious ministers conducting weddings in registered places of worship and civil registrars can conduct a legally binding marriage. Couples who want an independent or humanist celebrant to lead their ceremony must still book a separate legal ceremony with a registrar alongside it, in effect paying for two ceremonies to have their choice of officiant legally recognised.

The Law Commission’s 2022 review was blunt about the result, describing the law as “inconsistent and complicated, inefficient, unfair and needlessly restrictive,” creating unnecessary barriers to marriage and limiting choice.

What is being proposed as part of the government’s wedding law consultation?

Building on the Law Commission’s 2022 report, the Ministry of Justice launched its formal consultation, Tying the Knot: Reforming Weddings Law in England and Wales, on 16 July 2026, running until 24 September 2026.

The central shift is structural: rather than regulating the venue, the proposed model would authorise the officiant conducting the ceremony, opening up far greater choice over where a wedding can legally take place.

Key proposals include:

More venue choice: Couples could legally marry in a far wider range of locations, from forests, beaches and private gardens to castles, canal boats and cruise ships at sea. I
Weddings at home: The consultation asks for views on permitting weddings in private homes, and what safeguards this would need.
Weddings on water: Views are also sought on allowing ceremonies on inland and territorial waters, and on UK-registered cruise ships in international waters.
Venue pre-authorisation: A voluntary pre-authorisation system is proposed for wedding venues.
A wider range of officiants: The government is exploring recognition of officiants from non-religious belief organisations, such as humanist celebrants, potentially removing the need for a separate civil ceremony to make a marriage legally binding.
A new “dignity framework”: To balance this added flexibility, ministers propose placing a legal duty on officiants to uphold the significance of marriage, supported by standards for locations, ceremonies and a set of decision-making factors.
Notice period unchanged: The existing 28-day notice period is expected to remain in place for safeguarding reasons, though supporting processes such as giving notice could be modernised, possibly through digital systems.

What could happen as a result of the reform?

The stakes are significant. If implemented, this would be one of the most significant overhauls of marriage law in England and Wales for generations – though it still needs parliamentary approval – and the government estimates the reform could add £535 million to the economy over the next ten years and create around 12,000 new jobs.

Our thoughts

These proposals feel like a sensible step towards wedding laws that better reflect how couples live and celebrate today. At a time when many younger couples are choosing to live together rather than marry, making marriage more flexible, personal and accessible may help it feel like a more realistic option. Giving couples more choice over where and how they marry could also remove the need for some couples to pay for both a meaningful ceremony and a separate legal one.

Of course, the way a couple chooses to celebrate their wedding does not change the legal commitment they are making. For some couples, especially where there are assets, businesses, inheritance, children from previous relationships or international finances involved, it can be helpful to have open conversations early on. Taking advice about a pre-nuptial agreement is not about expecting the marriage to fail, but about giving both people clarity, reassurance and a shared understanding from the start.

If you would like to understand how these issues may affect you, or if you need advice on a pre-nuptial or post-nuptial agreement, please contact us and we would be happy to help.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call our office on 020 7928 0276, we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on [email protected].

Or, use the contact form on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/contact/

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.

James Cook

See Full Bio

SSHD v Dabo: Deportation & Article 8 Private Life

This case concerns a foreign criminal, Mr Dabo, who argued that deporting him would breach his human rights. The First-tier Tribunal (“FtT”) dismissed his protection claim but allowed his appeal against deportation on Article 8 (private life) grounds. The Secretary of State for the Home Department (“SSHD”) appealed to the Upper Tribunal (“UT”), which dismissed her appeal and upheld the FtT’s decision. She has now appealed further.

Written by Lorraine Hon, Solicitor

Background

For context, Mr Dabo arrived in the UK in 2007, aged 16, as an unaccompanied asylum-seeking child. He has made three claims for asylum, all of which have failed. Before the deportation order was issued, Mr Dabo was a persistent offender with 19 convictions for 34 offences. In 2016, he was convicted of 4 counts of possession of Class A drugs (heroin and cocaine) with intent to supply, and sentenced to 2 years 8 months’ imprisonment. He also has a long-term girlfriend but he does not cohabit with her.

Mr Dabo raised protection and human rights claims. The FtT judge rejected the protection aspect of the claim and found that Mr Dabo ‘s article 8 private life claim was strong enough to meet the elevated threshold of “very compelling circumstances” over and above the rules, and therefore deportation would be a disproportionate interference with his private life established in the UK.

The SSHD contends that there were material errors of law in the FtT decision, and the UT erred in upholding it because:

(1) the judge erred in his approach to the question whether Mr Dabo was socially and culturally integrated into the UK, by failing to consider whether his integration was into the lawful social structure of the UK and whether any such integration had been broken by his offending;

(2) the judge, when considering whether there were very significant obstacles to Mr Dabo’s reintegration into Guinea, only addressed the question of what obstacles there were to reintegration, without carrying out an evaluation of whether the elevated threshold of “very significant” was met, i.e. whether those obstacles would prevent or seriously inhibit his reintegration. Alternatively, if such an evaluation was carried out, the judge failed to explain why the threshold was met.

Court of Appeal Decision

Regarding ground 1, the Court of Appeal does not accept that the judge made an error by determining whether Mr Dabo was socially and culturally integrated in the UK in the first place, rather than looking at the position as at the date of the hearing (as in after he had been convicted of a number of offences for which he received custodial sentences). The judge made the assessment based on Mr Dabo’s time since 2007 until the date of the hearing, taken into account all his time in the UK. Therefore, the UT was right to reject this ground of SSHD’s appeal.

Regarding ground 2, the Court of Appeal held that the judge had the “very serious obstacles” test well in mind as eh referred to it in a number of paragraphs in the decision and reached the conclusion that Mr Dabo “will not be enough of an insider so as to have a reasonable opportunity to be accepted [in Guinea] and be able to operate [there] on a day to day basis.” That conclusion is reinforced by findings made later in the FtT decision in a number of paragraphs which find that Mr Dabo has no solid ties in his home country and that he will face very significant difficulties and may become destitute on return. Therefore, ground 2 also failed.

Our thoughts

From this case, we can see that it is probable for a person with criminal records to remain in the UK considering one can show that they have a genuine and subsisting relationship with a qualifying partner or there are very compelling circumstances over and above which would make deportation a breach of their human rights.

If you are in a similar situation, feel free to contact us and we would be happy to help.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call our office on 020 7928 0276, we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on [email protected].

Or, use the contact form on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/contact/

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.

James Cook

See Full Bio

High Court Rules Home Office’s NRM Policy Change Unlawful in France Removal Case

On 10 July 2026, the High Court handed down its judgment in R (AYA) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWHC 1742 (Admin), a case concerning the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) and removals to France under the UK-France “one in, one out” scheme.

Written by Beryl Gao, Legal Assistant

The case considered whether the Secretary of State acted lawfully when amending the Modern Slavery statutory guidance to remove the ability to request reconsideration of negative Reasonable Grounds (RG) and Conclusive Grounds (CG) decisions where removal to certain third countries was intended.

The High Court held that the amendment was unlawful. Mr Justice Sheldon found that the change weakened the effectiveness of the UK’s victim identification system, amounted to an unlawful fetter on discretion, and frustrated the purpose of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.

However, the court rejected most of the individual challenges brought against removal-related decisions.

Background

The claimants, anonymised as AYA, EXR, GIP, HRE and KAG, were individuals who had either been at risk of removal, or had already been removed, to France under the bilateral agreement described in the judgment as the treaty on the prevention of dangerous journeys. The scheme was referred to internally as Operation Hillmore.

The claims were heard together because they raised common issues concerning removals to France, alongside individual challenges relating to trafficking decisions, inadmissibility decisions, certification decisions and, in AYA’s case, the refusal of VTS leave.

The central issue concerned an amendment made on 17 September 2025 to paragraph 14.216 of the statutory guidance issued under section 49 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.

Before the amendment, individuals who received a negative Reasonable Grounds or Conclusive Grounds decision could request reconsideration where further evidence became available.

The amendment removed this ability where the Secretary of State intended to remove the person to a country that was a signatory to both the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (ECAT) and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The claimants argued that this amendment weakened the UK’s victim identification system and was therefore unlawful.

The High Court’s Decision

The High Court held that the amendment to the statutory guidance was unlawful.

Mr Justice Sheldon held that section 49(1) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 requires the Secretary of State to maintain an effective system for identifying victims of slavery and human trafficking.

The court found that removing the ability to request reconsideration significantly weakened that system because potentially important new evidence could not be considered before a person’s removal.

The court therefore concluded that the amendment undermined the effectiveness of the statutory victim identification mechanism.

They also held that the amendment breached the Padfield principle, as it frustrated rather than promoted the purpose of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.

Unlawful Fetter on Discretion

The court further held that paragraph 14.216 amounted to an unlawful fetter on discretion.

Although the Secretary of State retained an implied power to reopen adverse decisions, the evidence showed that reconsideration was generally only exercised where legal proceedings had been threatened.

The court found that this prevented the Secretary of State from considering new evidence that could be important when determining whether an individual was a victim of trafficking.

Other Issues Considered by the Court

The court rejected the challenge based on the Tameside duty, finding that the Secretary of State had taken reasonable steps to obtain relevant information before introducing the amended guidance.

The court also considered the territorial scope of ECAT and Article 4 ECHR. It accepted that there was at least an arguable view that ECAT may apply to victims who are present in a contracting state even where the trafficking occurred elsewhere. However, it rejected the argument that Article 4 ECHR necessarily has the same extra-territorial scope.

Most of the individual challenges were unsuccessful.

AYA’s challenges to the refusal of VTS leave, the inadmissibility decision and the certification decision were dismissed. EXR’s challenge to the negative Reasonable Grounds decision relating to Ethiopia and Belarus failed. HRE’s challenge to the negative Conclusive Grounds decision and certification also failed. KAG’s challenges to certification and inadmissibility were unsuccessful.

GIP was the only claimant who succeeded in challenging an individual trafficking decision, with the court holding that the negative Reasonable Grounds decision in his case was unlawful.

What Does This Mean?

The judgment confirms that reconsideration of negative NRM decisions forms part of the statutory process for identifying victims of trafficking. Where further evidence becomes available before removal, it is important that such evidence is properly considered.

However, the judgment does not mean that removals to France are automatically unlawful. The court accepted that France remains a safe third country for asylum purposes and noted that asylum seekers there are able to access accommodation, financial support and healthcare. The court also observed that trafficking-specific recognition and support in France may be more limited, particularly where the trafficking took place outside France.

More generally, the judgment confirms that a policy may be unlawful where it undermines the statutory purpose of section 49 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 or operates as an unlawful fetter on discretion.

Conclusion

The decision in AYA confirms that reconsideration is an important part of the statutory process for identifying victims of trafficking. The High Court found that removing the ability to request reconsideration of negative NRM decisions was unlawful because it weakened the effectiveness of the statutory victim identification system.

While the judgment does not prevent removals to France under the relevant scheme, it confirms that policies relating to modern slavery and NRM decisions must remain consistent with the statutory framework and must not unlawfully restrict the exercise of discretion.

If you have received a negative NRM decision or are facing removal from the UK, our immigration team can advise you on your legal options and whether this judgment may be relevant to your case. Please contact us for tailored legal advice.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call our office on 020 7928 0276, we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on [email protected].

Or, use the contact form on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/contact/

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.

James Cook

See Full Bio

Lisa’s Law Solicitors’ Summer Event

Staff at Lisa’s Law and business partners alike recently gathered together for our Summer Social by taking part in a activity which was new to most of us – Shuffleboard! This event took place at the stylish Electric Shuffle bar in London Bridge, with flowing drinks, excellent food and fun games setting the scene for an evening of fun and competition.

At Lisa’s Law, we place great importance on our socials as a way of coming together as a team outside of a work environment and having the opportunity to mingle together and with our business partners.

With the recent acquisition of our Lexcel accreditation, held by just 15% of law firms, this event provided the perfect opportunity to celebrate and relax.

As always, it gave us great pleasure to welcome some of our closest business partners from companies including Liu’s International, Chase Evans, London-Swift, ZFL Property, Yanping Accountancy and Chancery Advice. Events like this give us the opportunity to strengthen the relationships we have with these partners, helping us continue to work closely together going forward.

After splitting into groups, we took turns to compete against each other and win individual mini games which contributed towards a league table. For those not familiar, Shuffleboard itself consists of sliding a puck into point-scoring zones along a long table, being careful to ensure that the puck doesn’t slide off the end of the table – which would result in zero points.

After four attempts, whoever has the highest score overall wins the game. The games proved to be competitive, with everyone doing their best to win.

We would like to thank everyone who came, including our business partners, and look forward to our next social event later this year.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call our office on 020 7928 0276, we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on [email protected].

Or, use the contact form on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/contact/

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.

James Cook

See Full Bio

The Difference Between an Estate Rent Charge and Ground Rent

Buying a property involves more than paying the purchase price. Many buyers assume that purchasing a freehold property means there will be no ongoing payments. However, some freehold properties are subject to estate rent charges. Although estate rent charge is similar to ground rent in that they are recurring payments, they serve very different purposes and arise in different circumstance.

Written by Emily Ding, Trainee Solicitor

What is Ground Rent?

Ground rent is an annual payment made by a leaseholder to the freeholder (landlord) under the terms of a lease.

Traditionally, ground rent was a nominal sum, such as £50 or £100 per year. However, some leases may include provisions for ground rent to increase over time, which became a significant concern for leaseholder. As a result, the Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022 provides that most new long residential lease granted on or after 30 June 2022 may reserve only a peppercorn ground rent, meaning no monetary ground rent is payable.

Ground rent is payable regarding of whether the landlord provides any service. It is simply a payment reserved under the lease and is not linked to the provision of services or maintenance.

What is an Estate Rent Charge?

An estate rent charge is entirely different. It is a payment made by a freehold homeowner, rather than a leaseholder, to the rent charge owner.

Many modern housing developments contain communal facilities that are not adopted by the local authority, such as:

Private roads
Landscaping
Open green spaces
Children’s play areas
Security gates

These communal areas require ongoing maintenance. The developer or management company remains responsible and recovers the costs from the freeholder/homeowner through an estate rent charge, rather than the local authority maintaining them.

Unlike ground rent, an estate rent charge is intended to fund the maintenance and management of shared areas and services.

What Does It Matter for Buyers?

Whether a property is subject to ground rent or an estate rent charge can affect your ongoing financial obligations as a homeowner, especially if you are borrowing money from the lender. While ground rent on most new residential leases has been abolished, many existing leasehold properties still require payment. Estate rent charges, however, remain common on modern freehold developments and are used to fund the maintenance of communal areas.

Estate rent charges are also important because unpaid estate rent charges carry statutory enforcement rights, which may affect a mortgage lender’s security. For this reason, lenders often require conveyancers to investigate these charges carefully and ensure that any lender requirements are satisfied before completion.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call our office on 020 7928 0276, we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on [email protected].

Or, use the contact form on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/contact/

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.

James Cook

See Full Bio

Lisa’s Law Achieves Prestigious Lexcel Accreditation – What it Means for Our Clients

Lisa’s Law are proud to announce that we have achieved the widely recognised Lexcel accreditation, the Law Society’s practice management standard for the legal profession. This recognition reflects our ongoing commitment to delivering consistently high standards of client care, risk management, and operational excellence across every area of our practice.

Awarded following a rigorous independent assessment, Lexcel accreditation confirms that our processes – from how we manage client files to how we handle complaints and safeguard sensitive information – meet the exacting benchmarks set by the Law Society.

The Lexcel accreditation puts Lisa’s Law Solicitors in a select group of law firms in England and Wales, with only 15-16% of eligible law firms possessing it.

Managing Director, Chuanli Ding had this to say:

“I am delighted that Lisa’s Law has achieved Lexcel accreditation, a recognised quality mark of excellence that reflects high standards of client care, robust regulatory compliance, and effective legal practice management. This achievement further reinforces the confidence that our clients can place in our services.

I am proud of, and grateful to, our team, whose hard work, dedication, and perseverance have made this possible. Their tremendous efforts have been instrumental in elevating the firm’s overall practice to a higher standard and strengthening our commitment to excellence.”

What does it mean for our clients?

For new clients across London and beyond, our newly acquired Lexcel status means an added layer of assurance that when you choose Lisa’s Law, you’re choosing a firm built on robust, well-tested foundations.

For our existing clients, it will largely mean business as usual – however, we would like to take this opportunity to communicate our appreciation for your trust in us over the years and rest assured that this means we will continue to ensure that we strive to maintain our high standards in the years to come.

This achievement follows in the footsteps of numerous prestigious accreditations over the years, including the Law Society’s Conveyancing Quality Scheme (CQS) accreditation – held since 2019, Legal 500 status for Personal Immigration and Billing and Efficiency, as well as the Law Society’s Wills and Inheritance Quality Scheme (WIQS) accreditation.

Looking for a law firm you can trust?

Whether you’re navigating an immigration application, buying or selling property, managing a business, resolving a dispute, or seeking support with family matters, our Lexcel-accredited standards mean you’re in safe hands at every step. Get in touch with our team today to find out how we can help.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call our office on 020 7928 0276, we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on [email protected].

Or, use the contact form on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/contact/

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.

James Cook

See Full Bio

Game On: The IFR’s First Warning Under the Football Governance Act

The FIFA World Cup may have ended on Sunday night, but the Independent Football Regulator’s game has just started: Morecambe Football Club became the first to receive a warning notice under the Football Governance Act from this newly established governing body.

Background

The Independent Football Regulator (IFR), is a statutory regulator established under the Football Governance Act 2025. Specifically, it has powers to require information, oversee club owners and directors, enforce compliance, and impose sanctions including censures and financial penalties on regulated football clubs and their owners.

Early in 2026, the IFR issued a request for information within its Owners, Directors and Senior Executives (“ODSE”) regime to Morecambe Football Club. This request was made under section 65 of the Football Governance Act 2025. Nevertheless, the Club failed to respond by the deadline and did not request an extension.

Subsequently, the club submitted responses on 8 April 2026. However, the IFR considered them incomplete and requested the missing information. That further deadline was missed. The IFR subsequently issued an Investigation Notice in June 2026, requiring complete responses. The club managed to provide further information, but some requests remained unanswered.

Alleged Breach of section 65 of the Football Governance Act 2025

According to the IFR, Morecambe Football Club and its owner failed to comply with statutory information notices issued under section 65 the Act, without giving reasonable explanations.

Consequently, it concluded that the failures prevented it from carrying out its regulatory functions efficiently. Notably, the impact has since been reduced after the Club’s relegation from the National League on 6 June 2026. From that point, the Club ceased to be subject to the ODSE regime.

That said, the Decision Notice is yet to be issued. The Club has until 28 July 2026 to make written representations before the IFR’s final decision.

Watch out, Football Clubs, Owners and Directors

Ultimately, this is a real time demonstration that the Football Governance Act 2025 has real regulatory power and that the IFR is duly exercising it as statutory obligations. Clubs, owners and directors should ensure they have effective governance processes in place. When it comes to IFR information requests, they are to comply with the Act and to respond promptly, accurately and in full.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call our office on 020 7928 0276, we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on [email protected].

Or, use the contact form on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/contact/

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.

James Cook

See Full Bio

Part 36 Offers – Winning the Case but Losing the Costs

One of the most misunderstood aspects of civil litigation in England and Wales is the Part 36 Offer. Many clients believe that if they win their case, they will recover their legal costs from the other side. Unfortunately, litigation is rarely that straightforward.

A recent High Court decision demonstrates a harsh reality: a party may succeed at trial, recover damages, yet still be ordered to pay the majority of the opponent’s legal costs. That is precisely what happened in The Wine Enterprise Investment Scheme Ltd (in liquidation) v Crowe U.K. LLP [2026] EWHC 1662 (Ch).

Below, we explain what a Part 36 Offer is, how it works, and what this recent decision means for anyone bringing or defending a claim.

Written by Frankie Ng, Litigation Supervisor

What is a Part 36 Offer and How Does It Work?

What is a Part 36 Offer?

Part 36 is a self-contained settlement regime under the Civil Procedure Rules (“CPR”). It encourages parties to settle disputes at an early stage by attaching significant costs consequences to offers that are unreasonably rejected.

Unlike ordinary “without prejudice” settlement offers, a properly drafted Part 36 Offer carries automatic costs consequences unless the court considers it unjust to apply them. For that reason, experienced litigators regard Part 36 as one of the most powerful tactical tools available during litigation.

How does Part 36 work?

Either the claimant or the defendant may make a Part 36 Offer at almost any stage of proceedings.

The offer remains open for acceptance for a minimum period of 21 days (known as the “relevant period”).

If accepted within that period:

the claim usually comes to an end;
the defendant pays the agreed settlement sum; and
the claimant is generally entitled to recover its costs up to the date of acceptance.

However, the real significance of Part 36 arises when the offer is not accepted.

What happens if the claimant rejects a defendant’s Part 36 Offer?

If the claimant proceeds to trial but fails to obtain a judgment that is more advantageous than the defendant’s Part 36 Offer, CPR 36.17 provides that, unless unjust:

the claimant must pay the defendant’s costs from the expiry of the relevant period; and
interest may also be payable on those costs.

This often means that a claimant who technically “wins” the case may nevertheless suffer a substantial financial loss because of the adverse costs order.

What if the defendant rejects the claimant’s Part 36 Offer?

The consequences can be equally severe.

Where a claimant obtains a judgment at least as advantageous as its own Part 36 Offer, the court will usually order the defendant to pay:

indemnity costs from expiry of the offer;
enhanced interest on damages;
enhanced interest on costs; and
an additional amount calculated under CPR Part 36 (subject to the statutory cap).

These consequences are deliberately punitive. They are intended to encourage parties to settle genuine disputes rather than gamble on the outcome at trial.

The recent High Court decision – The Wine Enterprise Investment Scheme Ltd v Crowe U.K. LLP

The Facts of the Case

The decision in The Wine Enterprise Investment Scheme Ltd v Crowe U.K. LLP provides an important lesson for anyone involved in commercial litigation.

The claimant sought damages exceeding £8 million against its auditors. Before trial, the defendant made a Part 36 Offer of £3.175 million plus costs. The claimant rejected the offer and proceeded to trial.

Ultimately, however, the claimant recovered only around £102,000, representing approximately 1.6% of the amount originally claimed. The lesson of this is that winning does not necessarily mean you are the successful party.

Perhaps the most striking aspect of the judgment is the court’s approach to determining who was the “successful party”. Although the claimant obtained damages, the judge looked beyond the technical result. Instead, the court asked a more practical question.

Who really won the litigation?

The court concluded that:

the claimant failed on the overwhelming majority of its case;
it recovered only a tiny fraction of what it sought;
it would never have commenced proceedings merely to recover the modest amount eventually awarded.

The judge described the outcome as a “Pyrrhic victory” and held that, in substance, the defendant was the successful party. Accordingly, the claimant was ordered to pay 85% of the defendant’s costs incurred before expiry of the Part 36 Offer.

Matters worsened further still, as the claimant had also rejected the defendant’s Part 36 Offer. Because it failed to beat that offer at trial, CPR 36.17 applied.

The court held there was nothing unjust about enforcing the normal Part 36 consequences.

As a result, the defendant recovered:

all of its costs after expiry of the Part 36 Offer; and
interest on those costs.

The court emphasised that the burden of showing injustice is a “formidable obstacle” and that the ordinary Part 36 consequences should not lightly be displaced.

Practical lessons

This judgment contains several important lessons for litigants.

Valuing your case realistically is essential.

Overestimating the value of a claim can lead to disastrous costs consequences.

Every Part 36 Offer deserves careful consideration.

Rejecting an offer should never be an emotional decision. The commercial risks must be evaluated objectively.

Litigation is about proportionality.

Recovering a small sum after pursuing an expensive claim may amount to a practical defeat, even if liability is technically established.

Costs often become the most significant issue in litigation.

In substantial commercial disputes, legal costs frequently exceed the damages eventually recovered. A well-timed Part 36 Offer can dramatically alter the financial outcome of a case.

Final thoughts

Part 36 is far more than a procedural technicality. It is one of the most effective strategic tools available in English civil litigation.

A carefully drafted Part 36 Offer can create significant settlement pressure, protect a party’s position on costs and, in many cases, determine the overall financial outcome of the litigation.

Whether you are bringing a claim or defending one, obtaining specialist advice before making or rejecting a Part 36 Offer can make the difference between commercial success and an expensive mistake.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call our office on 020 7928 0276, we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on [email protected].

Or, use the contact form on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/contact/

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.

James Cook

See Full Bio

News and Insights

Freehold: Outright Absolute Ownership

Leasehold: Ownership for a Fixed Term

Share of Freehold: Collaborative Control

Key Legal Checklist Before Making an Offer

Ready to Proceed? Get a Conveyancing Quote

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Have questions? Get in touch today!

What is the current law?

What is being proposed as part of the government’s wedding law consultation?

What could happen as a result of the reform?

Our thoughts

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Background

Court of Appeal Decision

Our thoughts

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Background

The High Court’s Decision

Unlawful Fetter on Discretion

Other Issues Considered by the Court

What Does This Mean?

Conclusion

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Have questions? Get in touch today!

What is Ground Rent?

What is an Estate Rent Charge?

What Does It Matter for Buyers?

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Managing Director, Chuanli Ding had this to say:

What does it mean for our clients?

Looking for a law firm you can trust?

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Background

Alleged Breach of section 65 of the Football Governance Act 2025

Watch out, Football Clubs, Owners and Directors

Have questions? Get in touch today!

What is a Part 36 Offer and How Does It Work?

What is a Part 36 Offer?

How does Part 36 work?

What happens if the claimant rejects a defendant’s Part 36 Offer?

What if the defendant rejects the claimant’s Part 36 Offer?

The recent High Court decision – The Wine Enterprise Investment Scheme Ltd v Crowe U.K. LLP

The Facts of the Case

Who really won the litigation?

Practical lessons

Final thoughts

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Subscribe to our newsletter

Subscribe Newsletter Blog Sidebar