intouch

Autumn 2026

In this edition, our claims case study features a long, drawn-out dispute over an outstanding right of way that had been obstructed for many years, and which ended up taking almost five years to resolve. We also look at the Farrell v Garforth-Bles (2025) ruling, which demonstrates how difficult it can be to relax or amend a restrictive covenant once it has been imposed. 

In Ask the Experts, we answer questions covering EV chargers that have previously been installed to the outside of listed properties, and the scenarios where our Missing/Illegible Deed Plan policy can help.

If you'd like to talk to us about any of the topics discussed in our articles, or to simply find out more about our products and services, call 01603 617617 or email enquiries@cli.co.uk.

Win a fantastic Ninja Slushi Twist frozen drinks maker!

You could win a Ninja Slushi Twist frozen drink maker in the latest intouch competition - just answer two questions based on articles within this issue.

Restrictive covenants: ‘Grounds’ for refusal

In the Farrell v Garforth-Bles and Bishop’s Mansions Limited (2025) ruling, the Upper Tribunal highlighted how difficult it can be to relax or amend a restrictive covenant once it has been imposed, even when the request might, on the face of it, appear reasonable.

It pays to go direct

We know that some legal professionals choose to submit their enquiries to a broker. But there are clear benefits to firms and their clients when you come to us directly.