The following came out of the Autumn statement yesterday:
- The ban on upfront fees imposed on tenants by letting agents in England and Wales. Scotland has already banned these fees.
- The announcement that the Land Registry is to remain in the public sector.
- The announcement that the government is to publish a Housing White Paper setting out its plans for reforms to increase housing supply and halt the decline in housing affordability.
- £1.4 billion to assist delivery of 40,000 new affordable homes in England and Wales and a further £3.15 million to the Greater London Authority to deliver 90,000 affordable homes in London.
- £2.3 billion for a housing infrastructure fund to support the building of 100,000 new homes in high demand areas.
- The creation of a National Productivity Investment Fund to provide major investment in, amongst other things, transport and housing.
The announcement of the ban on fees charged by letting agents in England and Wales is seen by many as another blow to estate agents and landlords. Whilst making landlords responsible for such fees may improve competition, there is concern that it will merely result in a rent increase for tenants as landlords seek to recover the cost.
Contact me for more details should you wish to discuss any of the above issues.
Source: Practical Law
The Court of Appeal has reversed a decision dismissing a claim against the defendant football agents for want of proof of causation. The claimant, also a football agent, had issued proceedings against the defendants for, among other things, inducing a professional football player to breach his oral contract with the claimant.
The claimant alleged that the defendants had excluded him from a transfer deal that he had arranged for the player and had deprived the claimant from the opportunity to receive a transfer fee. The court held that, properly analysed, the claim was for loss of a chance. The claimant was entitled to an award of damages against the defendants for loss of a chance to earn a fee under a written agency agreement with the player. The court decided not to interfere with the judge’s finding that, on the facts, the player would not have entered into a written contract with the claimant at the end of the transfer process. In the circumstances, the effect of the loss of chance approach was that the chance of the player signing a contract with the claimant fell to be evaluated as no higher than 50%.
The court remitted the matter to the judge for the purpose of assessing the relevant percentage likelihood. It also held that a settlement which the claimant had reached with the player relating to the player’s breach of contract did not prevent the claimant from pursuing the defendants. Although the settlement agreement had been drafted in wide terms, it did not make “absolutely clear” that in settling with the player, the claimant was foregoing his right to recover his remaining loss.
The decision provides a good example of the application of the complex loss of a chance principle. It would appear that at first instance issues of causation and assessment were confused. The finding that the player would not have entered into a written contract with the claimant was only relevant to the assessment of damages and not to the issue of liability. The practical significance of this being that although ultimately the claimant may only receive nominal damages from the defendants’ tort, he is unlikely to be liable for their costs, which in this case may be substantial. (McGill v The Sports and Entertainment Media Group and others  EWCA Civ 1063.)
Source: Practical Law.