Practice Areas
Expertise
David Linklater specialises in all aspects of commercial property litigation, acting for tenants, landlords, investors and developers. His expertise covers a whole range of commercial property scenarios, including business lease renewals and termination, dilapidations disputes, advice on forfeiture, the property insolvency regime and restructuring advice, rent reviews, advice concerning the acquisition of land and buildings and the rights pertaining thereto, actions against trespassers and telecommunications advice.
Key Experience and Clients
David has acted successfully in a number of high-profile cases, in various property-related matters.
Relief from forfeiture
One such case involved acting for a national retailer, against a nightclub company to which the retailer had sublet part of its premises. The retailer became concerned at reports of unruly behaviour at the nightclub premises, including submachine gun attacks and an incident that saw a police officer threatened by a man waving a handgun.
David advised the retailer that the only means by which to immediately terminate the lease was by forfeiture, although the nightclub promoter immediately applied to Court for relief from forfeiture. Following a four day trial, in which the Court heard witnesses evidence from the national retailer, security experts, the local police and David himself, David was successful in persuading the Court to refuse to grant relief to the nightclub company.
The case received widespread regional media attention. as it ran its course and reports appeared in the local press and on regional news channels, such as BBC News and Birmingham Mail.
Market trader rights
Another significant case on which David acted on was an action against market traders in the town square at Skipton. David’s client, another national retailer, had granted a licence to allow traders to occupy land in front of their store, which formed part of the retailer’s demise. The traders suddenly stopped paying the licence fee and raised a number of alternative arguments as to why they shouldn’t have to, including that they enjoyed ancient traders’ rights under a Royal charter, or that the right to trade the market was owned by the Lord of the Manor of Skipton, or that the land formed part of a highway and was not therefore under the retailer’s ownership, or that they enjoyed the benefits of a lease. The retailer served notice on the traders, to end their lease and David advised on subsequent possession proceedings.
Following a two day trial, the Court was persuaded that the traders’ arguments were totally without merit and that they had in fact been licensees, that their licences had been validly terminated, that they were therefore trespassers. The retailer was awarded costs and damages. The case has both local and national significance as many market traders around the country had adopted a similar stance and this was seen as a test case on the issue.
Late registration of a charge
David acted for an international furniture retailer whose in-house legal team had failed to register within the required 21 day limit a charge at Companies House in respect of a £280m property acquisition. David was successful in applying to Court for leave to have the charge registered out of time and without attracting any of the financial penalties that the Court has discretion to impose in such a situation.
Contested lease renewals
As well as acting in copious non-hostile lease renewal situations, David has acted in a number of opposed lease renewal situations. In the most memorable, acting for a small, owner-run business, David successfully demonstrated that a landlord did not have the intention to occupy the subject premises for the purposes of its own business and successfully defended the landlord’s appeal on the same point. He has significant experience in acting for both landlords and tenants in such situations, with a high degree of success.
Reported cases
Princes House Limited v Distinctive Clubs Limited [2007] EWCA Civ 374
David acted for the tenant on the opposition of a landlord’s service charge demands. The tenant occupied the basement of a building that was shared with other businesses. For the initial period of its occupation, a service charge cap applied. The landlord allowed the roof of the building to fall into disrepair and once the service charge cap expired, undertook extensive repairs and improvements to the roof. The tenant challenged the landlord’s expenses on the basis that (1) it should not be liable for the improvements, from which it derived no benefit, and (2) it should not be liable for the full cost of the repairs, as had the landlord acted sooner, the tenant would have been protected by the cap.
Held: The landlord was not entitled to recover any of the costs of the works.
Chaudry v Yap [2005] EWHC 3380 (Ch)
This case explored the scope of the costs protection provided by an invitation to mediate and explored the factors that a Court would take into account.Held: In order to afford protection, an offer to mediate should be specific as to a proposed date and venue for the mediation and there must be a realistic prospect that mediation would be successful.
Professional Memberships
Property Litigation Association
Career History
2010 to date: Associate, SA Law
2004 to 2010: Solicitor, Shoosmiths
2004: qualified, HBJ Gateley Wareing LLP
Languages
Spanish (fluent), French, Italian (both basic)
Personal Information
In his free time, David enjoys travel, scuba diving and sampling his collection of wine.