#portner

A former choreographer and dancer for Justin Bieber has lambasted the pop star on social media, accusing him of degrading women and paying her “less than minimum wage.”

“I regret working under your name. I gave your universe my naive body, creativity, time and effort. Twice. For content you made millions off of. While I made zilch. Natta [sic]. Barely anything. Less than minimum wage for the hours I invested,” wrote Emma Portner on a since-expired Instagram Story.

“I couldn’t afford to eat. I was sweeping studio floors to be able to practice my own craft. The way you degrade women is an abomination.”

Portner, whose partner is actress Ellen Page, posted the accusations on the heels of Bieber expressing his support for manager Scooter Braun. Braun is currently embroiled in controversy with Taylor Swift after he purchased Big Machine Label Group, which gave him control over nearly all of Swift’s music catalog. In response to the acquisition, Swift penned a blog on Tumblr where she called out Braun for his “manipulative bullying” and said that his access to her catalog was “the worst case scenario.”

In light of Bieber backing Braun amid that drama, Portner said that Bieber collaborates with “overly problematic people” echoes even louder.

“You religiously go to a church that does not support the LGBTQ+ community,” wrote Portner. “Your company hired an out lesbian in your music video, and to choreograph some content for your purpose world tour. How do you feel about that? A lesbian, HELPING YOU, for a disrespectful amount of money, as you attend a church that goes against my existence?”

A judge has accused a barrister and solicitor of “appalling professional misbehaviour” in relation to the citation of five fake cases in a statement of facts and trying to dismiss these as “minor citation errors”. It was suggested in the judgment that the fake cases may have been referenced due to the barrister using artificial intelligence. Partner Alex Williams reviews the case of Ayinde, R v The London Borough of Haringey and discusses the use of AI in legal research and drafting.

Judgment in Ayinde

The case involved judicial review proceedings in which the barrister for the claimant, Sarah Forey, lodged written submissions that referred to five cases that did not exist. When asked by the defendant’s solicitors to provide copies of the judgments, the claimant’s solicitors failed to do so, did not admit the cases were made up and said references to them were merely “cosmetic errors” that could be “easily explained”. The judge concluded that this assertion was “a grossly unprofessional categorisation”.

The judge was dismissive of Ms Forey’s explanation of how she had put five fake cases in her submission, saying he did not understand her explanation “or how it hangs together”. However, he said he was not in a position to determine whether she used AI as suggested by the defendant’s barrister, as she did not give evidence. He said that if she had used AI and not checked it, it would constitute negligence.

Although the judicial review was successful and costs awarded to the claimant, wasted costs orders were made against both Ms Forey and the claimant’s solicitors on the basis that they had acted “improperly, unreasonably or negligently”. This is a serious finding. Given that it ought to have been obvious to both Ms Forey and the claimant’s solicitors before the hearing that the cases weren’t real (having been alerted to this possibility beforehand), it is deeply concerning that they didn’t acknowledge their error and apologise rather than try to sidestep the issue and come up with explanations that, to the judge, made no sense. The judge was damning of their behaviour, saying “it should not be left unexposed. It undermines the integrity of the legal profession and the Bar.”

The judge concluded that “providing a fake description of five fake cases, including a Court of Appeal case, qualifies quite clearly as professional misconduct”. He ordered a copy of his judgment to be sent to the Bar Standards Council and Solicitors Regulation Authority.

AI and legal research and drafting

It seems unlikely this will be the last instance in which a solicitor’s or barrister’s alleged negligence is due to the use of AI, and it would be no surprise to see further cases in the months and years ahead.

In the meantime, the government has signalled its intention to “ramp up AI adoption across the UK” by releasing its AI Opportunities Action Plan.

This AI “revolution” is set to extend to the justice system. A report by Justice in January titled AI in our Justice System, says that “AI, or indeed the promise of AI yet to come, holds the potential to solve many genuine problems of people and planet – including some of the issues we are grappling with in the justice sector”. However, it also warns that it “equally has the potential to cause significant harm”.

One of the reasons for mistakes like the one in the Ayinde case (if, indeed, AI was used in that case) is due to AI “hallucinations”. “Hallucinations” is the term used for instances where AI generates incorrect information and presents it as fact.

As Justice’s report points out: “Some AI models, particularly large language models (LLMs), can produce entirely fabricated or misleading content. These outputs may appear coherent and authoritative but are not grounded in reality… For instance, recent Stanford research found that tools designed to assist with legal enquiries frequently generated fabricated case citations and inaccurate legal interpretations.”

The report also highlights other issues with AI in its current form, such as its unpredictability, algorithmic bias and lack of transparency. Critically, there are also concerns that this may act as a barrier to access to justice as “inaccurate, biased, or poor-quality AI outputs may discourage individuals from asserting their rights or seeking redress”.

Conclusion 

The temptation is to see AI simply as a reliable and exceptionally useful tool for saving time (particularly given the immense time pressures affecting those that work in the legal profession) and ensuring every legal angle is covered when carrying out research or drafting. But this is fraught with danger.

To mitigate against this danger, Justice’s report proposes two clear requirements for those seeking to use AI in the justice system:

“Goal led: Ensure the tool is clearly aimed at improving one or more of the justice system’s core goals of access to justice, fair and lawful decision making and transparency.”

“Duty to act responsibly:Ensure all those involved in creating and using the tool take responsibility for ensuring the rule of law and human rights are embedded at each stage of its design, development and deployment.”

The report argues that complying with these requirements can “help safely harness AI’s potential across the justice sector”.

It was said long ago that “technology is a good servant but a bad master”, and this statement is regularly updated now to refer specifically to AI. Lawyers, in particular, would be wise to heed this advice.

If you have any litigation queries, please contact Alex Williams at aw@ Portner.co.uk. 

For more information visit our website:  https://www.portner.co.uk/

The High Court has ruled in favour of buyers who sought rescission and damages for fraudulent misrepresentation in their purchase of a £32.5m million mansion in Notting Hill. Partner Daniel Broughton examines the decision in Patarkatsishvili and another v Woodward-Fisher [2025] EWHC 265 (Ch), which underscores the vital importance of giving honest disclosures to enquiries in property transactions.​

Background

Iya Patarkatsishvili and her husband, Dr Yevhen Hunyak, purchased Horbury Villa, a Victorian mansion in Notting Hill, from developer Mr William Woodward-Fisher for £32.5m in May 2019.

Shortly after moving in, they discovered a severe infestation of clothes moths that had not been apparent during pre-contract inspections. Investigations revealed that the infestation originated from woollen insulation installed during renovations between 2012 and 2013.

Pre-contract enquiries and misrepresentations

Before the sale, Mr Woodward-Fisher responded to standard pre-contract enquiries by stating that he was unaware of any vermin infestations or defects not apparent upon inspection. However, evidence presented during the trial showed that he had received reports from a pest control company in 2018, identifying a high-level moth infestation and recommending the removal of the woollen insulation. Despite this, he did not disclose these reports to the buyers.​

The legal issues

The court examined whether Mr Woodward-Fisher’s responses to three specific pre-contract enquiries constituted misrepresentations. These enquiries related to:​

Awareness of any vermin infestations.

The existence of reports concerning the property’s fabric.

Knowledge of any defects not apparent on inspection.

Mr Woodward-Fisher denied any such issues, stating he was unaware of infestations or defects and that no relevant reports existed.

Court’s findings and decision

The court found these statements to be false. Mr Justice Fancourt concluded that the defendant “did not honestly believe his replies to two of the three enquiries” and was “reckless about the truth of the third reply”. This was because he knew there was or may have been a serious infestation of moths requiring the removal of all the natural insulation in the house.

An important aspect of the case was the classification of moths as vermin. The court determined that “an infestation of moths is an infestation of vermin” within the context of the enquiries. This interpretation was crucial in establishing that the defendant’s responses were untrue.

The court concluded that the claimants were entitled to rescind the contract and receive repayment of the purchase price, less an allowance for their use of the property. Additionally, they were awarded substantial damages, including costs incurred in attempting to eradicate the infestation.​

Implications for sellers

This case is a stark reminder that sellers must provide honest and complete answers to pre-contract enquiries. Failure to disclose known issues, especially those not apparent from an inspection, can lead to claims of fraudulent misrepresentation and/or a significant payment of damages.​

The decision reinforces the principle that “buyer beware” (ie “caveat emptor”) does not absolve sellers from the duty to disclose known defects.

Interestingly, the judge concluded his judgment by saying: “The suggestion that a conclusion of misrepresentation in this extreme case will cause a general conveyancing problem is simply wrong.” This comment highlights the extreme facts of this case in order to address concerns that the decision would complicate the conveyancing process.

If you have any conveyancing queries, please contact Daniel Broughton at [email protected].

The government has granted power to local authorities to “breathe new life back into high streets and transform long-term empty shops”. High Street Rental Auctions (HSRAs) will enable local authorities to tackle persistently vacant properties by putting empty shop leases up for auction. Partner Mitchell Griver examines the new proposals.

The government says UK high streets have been neglected for too long, resulting in one in seven high street shops currently being closed. It has committed to “revitalise town centres and bring thriving high streets back for good”.

Under new rules that came into force on 2 December 2024, councils will be able to step in and auction one-to-five-year leases of “qualifying high street premises” that have been empty for more than 365 days in the previous two years.

Qualifying high-street premises

“Qualifying high-street premises” are premises the local authority considers suitable for “high-street use” situated in a designated high street or town centre. The local authority can designate a street as a high street and/or a network of streets as a town centre if they consider them important to the local economy because of a concentration of “high-street uses”.

High-street use

High-street use includes shops, offices, restaurants, bars, cafes, communal halls and meeting places but excludes warehouses.

Landlord’s involvement

Local authorities must start the process by serving a notice on the landlord of the qualifying premises. For 10 weeks from the date of the notice, the landlord is subject to restrictions on letting the premises.

If the premises remain unlet after eight weeks, the local authority can serve a final notice on the landlord. This further restricts the landlord from letting or doing any works to the premises. At this stage, the landlord can appeal the final notice (within 14 days) on one of the permissible grounds. These include carrying out substantial works of construction, demolition or reconstruction that could not reasonably be done without retaining possession of the premises.

The auction

Once the appeal notice period has expired, the local authority will be responsible for preparing an auction pack. Landlords must provide relevant information, including proof of legal title, replies to enquiries and other documents and information such as EPCs, gas, water, electrical safety and fire safety certificates. Failure to comply by a landlord is a criminal offence.

There is a six-week marketing period during which prospective tenants can submit bids. The landlord has two working days to serve notice on the local authority of its choice of successful bid. If the landlord fails to serve such notice by the required deadline, the local authority should accept the bid with the highest rental value or otherwise the highest rental value with whom it is reasonably practicable to enter into a contract, although it may decide not to accept any bid.

The local authority then has the power to enter into the agreement for lease, thereby legally binding the landlord.

Lease terms

There will be standard form agreements for lease and leases, and the legislation prescribes specific terms for these as follows:

Term: between one and five years.

Deposit: the higher of £1,000 and three months’ rent.

Rent: payable monthly in advance on the first day of the month.

Repair: limited by a schedule of condition.

Alterations: installing shop fittings is permitted without the landlord’s consent. Other alterations are permitted subject to the landlord’s consent, which cannot be unreasonably withheld or delayed.

Dealings: dealings are prohibited except for an assignment of the whole with the landlord’s consent, which cannot be unreasonably withheld or delayed.

Use: the use proposed by the successful bidder must be within the suitable high street use identified by the local authority. A change of use is not permitted.

Security of tenure: this is excluded.

Costs

The local authority must pay the marketing costs and auction fees. It may require the successful bidder to pay legal costs, surveys and search fees. The landlord will be required to pay for any works needed to bring the premises to a “minimum standard” prescribed by the new regulations, for example, in relation to matters such as fire safety.

Comment

While reinvigorating failing high streets is a laudable goal, this legislation is incredibly draconian. It seems remarkable that landlords are losing the power to control who they let their premises to and on what terms. They may also be expected to spend money to bring premises up to a “minimum standard” despite the premises having laid empty for more than a year out of the previous two years.

We will be watching closely how landlords react to this new legislation and whether it spurs some to grant leases of persistently empty premises on their own terms rather than on terms imposed upon them. It will also be interesting to see how proactively local authorities embrace this new legislation to rejuvenate their local communities.

If you have any queries regarding High Street Rental Auctions, please contact Mitchell Griver at [email protected]. 

The government has announced significant reforms aimed at abolishing the traditional leasehold system for flats, transitioning instead to a commonhold model. This move seeks to address longstanding criticisms of the leasehold system, which has often been viewed as outdated and unfair to homeowners. In this article, senior associate Joe Genco examines the government’s proposed reforms.

Understanding freehold, leasehold and commonhold

Property ownership in England is primarily divided into freehold and leasehold tenures. Freehold ownership is perpetual, while leasehold ownership (the default for flats) is time-limited.

Under the leasehold system, homeowners purchase the right to occupy a property for a specified period (typically 99, 125 or 999 years), but the freeholder owns the land and building. This arrangement can lead to issues such as escalating ground rents, high service charges and limited control over property management.

In contrast, commonhold offers a form of freehold ownership where individuals own a “unit” (ie, their individual flat) outright within a shared building, and owners collectively manage shared areas through a commonhold association.

This structure provides greater autonomy and eliminates many pitfalls associated with leasehold ownership. This model, similar to those in North America, Australia and Europe, is nothing new. Commonhold was, in fact, introduced in England in 2002 via the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 but saw limited uptake due to its complex legal framework. Commonhold was said to be incompatible with mixed-use developments or shared ownership and has been criticised by lenders for failing to protect their interests.

Implications and challenges of the proposed reforms

The shift to commonhold is expected to empower homeowners with more control over their properties, potentially leading to more transparent management practices and financial arrangements.

The government wants commonhold to become the standard tenure by the end of this parliament (ie, 2029). New leasehold flats will be banned, and commonhold will become the default tenure. By banning new leasehold flats, the government aims to modernise property ownership, aligning it with practices common in other countries. However, it will not ban the sale of leasehold flats until it is confident that reformed commonhold is viable.

Converting existing leasehold properties to commonhold is a significant challenge, and one that the government acknowledges needs more consideration. The initial legislation (the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002) was complex and has been hampered by limitations, including requiring unanimous consent for a conversion to commonhold.

Further, the leasehold model is deeply entrenched in the property market, and many potential buyers, investors, developers, lenders and property professionals are not familiar with the commonhold system. There was no compulsory element to the previous legislation, and bar a few exceptions, most have chosen to stick with what they know rather than risk an untested model.

The government plans to tackle these issues head-on by:

Ensuring commonhold works for all types of ownership, including mixed-use buildings and shared ownership homes

Offering developers greater flexibility over development rights

Giving mortgage lenders greater assurance regarding their security

Strengthening the management of commonholds by imposing new rules for appointing directors, setting clear standards for repairs and mandating the use of reserve funds.   

What is the timetable for reform?

As mentioned above, the government wants commonhold to become the standard tenure of residential property ownership by 2029.

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government plans to publish a draft Leasehold and Commonhold Reform Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny in the second half of 2025. This will include detailed proposals for converting existing leasehold properties and implementing the reformed commonhold regime.

Consultations on banning new leasehold flats and introducing a new code of practice for commonhold management are also expected later this year. The government will seek input from industry and consumers on fundamental points such as potential exemptions for legitimate use and how to minimise disruption to the housing supply.

If you have any queries about the new commonhold proposals, please contact Joe Genco at [email protected]. 

Visit Our Website: https://www.portner.co.uk

Get in touch today to speak to an expert :

A new duty that came into force in October 2024 requires employers to take “reasonable steps” to prevent the sexual harassment of employees. In this article, consultant Karen South explains the new rules and also looks at the guidance for employers on developing appropriate plans and policies

What does the new duty add to the existing law relating to sexual harassment?

Sexual harassment in the workplace is already prohibited by the Equality Act 2010. It takes place when a person is subjected to unwanted conduct of a sexual nature, and such conduct violates that person’s dignity or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. Examples of conduct of a sexual nature include sexual comments or jokes, making promises in return for sexual favours and unwelcome kissing, touching or hugging.

The effect of the conduct is determined from the person’s subjective point of view; the harasser’s intentions are irrelevant.

Am employer can be held vicariously liable for sexual harassment by of one of their employees if it takes place during employment, which includes social events and out-of-hours parties.

However, the employer would have a defence to the claim if they took “all reasonable steps” to prevent the harassment. This is a high threshold. Appropriate steps would include preventative measures such as training, for example. If sexual harassment has already taken place, then the employer should take action to stop it happening again. This includes sexual harassment by third parties.

The new measure goes further. In addition to the existing duties on employers, it imposed a duty to take proactive steps to prevent sexual harassment of employees while at work by taking reasonable preventative action. This would include anticipating scenarios in which employees may be subjected to sexual harassment and risk assessing against those scenarios. “Reasonable steps” is an objective test and will depend on the circumstances of each case and factors such as the company’s size and work environment.

What are the consequences if an employer fails to comply with the new duty?

The new duty does not establish an independent cause of action against employers. A tribunal can only consider allegations of a breach of the new rules once an employee’s claim for sexual harassment has been upheld.

If an employee succeeds in a sexual harassment claim and the employer is found to have breached the new preventative duty, the tribunal can increase the compensation award by 25%. This could be a significant uplift given that there is no upper limit for compensation for discriminatory harassment.

In addition, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (ECHR) has been given powers to enforce the new duty regardless of whether a breach of the Act has occurred. These powers allow them to investigate employers, issue an unlawful act notice requiring the employer to prepare an action plan to remedy breaches and prevent future breaches, and require employers to enter into binding agreements to take steps to address issues of discrimination or harassment. The ECHR can also seek an injunction against an employer to restrain it from committing an unlawful act.

What should employers do to comply with the new rules?

The ECHR has published a guide for employers on the reasonable steps they should take to prevent sexual harassment of their employees.

Employers would be well-advised to update their anti-harassment policy and carry out a regular risk assessment programme to assess the risks to their employees of being sexually harassed and put in place steps to minimise them.

They should also consider training their managers and staff on what constitutes sexual harassment and explain that the consequences of committing sexual harassment will lead to disciplinary action, possibly even dismissal or cancellation of third party contracts. Employers should also institute a system for reporting complaints.

If you have any queries about the new sexual harassment law or any other employment issues, please contact Karen South at [email protected].

For more information visit our website : https://www.portner.co.uk

The government has announced that from January, leaseholders will have the right to buy their freehold or extend their lease without having to wait two years from when they bought the property. Partner Daniel Broughton examines what this and other reforms the government has promised to accelerate this year mean for leaseholders.

At the end of last year, Housing Minister Matthew Pennycook confirmed the government’s plans for implementing the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 (“LAFRA”). In a formal written statement, he promised to “balance speed with care if we are to ensure that the measures brought into force are to the lasting benefit of leaseholders and residential freeholders”.

Two-year rule and leaseholder rights

One of the main provisions under LAFRA is section 27, which will remove the two-year ownership rule before a leaseholder can extend their lease or buy the freehold of a long leasehold house.

Although Matthew Pennycook said this would come into force in January, the position is not yet straightforward for leaseholders. While section 27 will give leaseholders an immediate right to serve a notice to buy the freehold of their house or extend their lease (as appropriate), the valuation provisions setting out what a leaseholder has to pay are still some way off. It is estimated these will not come into force for around two years to allow the details to be ironed out.

Other measures to be introduced early this year will give homeowners the right to take over the management of their building, more transparency of costs and the right to challenge unfair service charges.

Leasehold and Commonhold Reform Bill

The government will also introduce the Leasehold and Commonhold Reform Bill in the second half of this year, which it says is “a crucial step towards the next generation of homeowners benefitting from a more modern, functional and fit-for-purpose commonhold system”.

Further reforms will be made to tackle unregulated and unaffordable ground rents and to regulate managing agents to ensure leaseholders are better protected.

We will update you with further details about these reforms and the exact date they will be implemented as they become available.

If you have any queries regarding the above reforms, please contact Daniel Broughton at [email protected]. 

Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced changes to Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) in the Autumn Budget that have increased the rates payable by buyers of additional properties and companies. Partner Daniel Broughton summarises the current SDLT rates and examines the new rates introduced with effect from 31 October 2024.

Overview of SDLT

SDLT is charged when you buy a residential freehold or leasehold property for a price that exceeds certain thresholds. The current thresholds are:

£250,000 for residential property

£425,000 for first-time buyers buying residential property worth up to £625,000.

Transactions for a purchase price below these thresholds are exempt, and no SDLT is payable.

The table below sets out the SDLT payable if you are buying a residential property in your personal name and it is the only residential property you own.

Rates up to 31 March 2025

Property or lease premium or transfer value

SDLT rate

Up to £250,000

 Zero

The next £675,000 (the portion from £250,001 to £925,000)

 5%

The next £575,000 (the portion from £925,001 to £1.5m)

 10%

The remaining amount (the portion above £1.5m)

 12%

These rates are changing from 1 April 2025 and from this date will be as follows:

Rates from 1 April 2025

Property or lease premium or transfer value

SDLT rate

Up to £125,000

Zero

The next £125,000 (the portion from £125,001 to £250,000)

2%

The next £675,000 (the portion from £250,001 to £925,000)

5%

The next £575,000 (the portion from £925,001 to £1.5m)

10%

The remaining amount (the portion above £1.5m)

12%

First-time buyer’s relief

First-time buyers buying before 31 March 2025 will pay no SDLT up to £425,000 and 5% SDLT on the portion from £425,001 to £625,000. If the price exceeds £625,000, you cannot claim first-time buyer relief.

From 1 April 2025, the relief changes, and first-time buyers will pay no SDLT up to £300,000 and 5% SDLT on the portion from £300,001 to £500,000. You will not be able to claim the relief if the price is more than £500,000.

Higher SDLT rates for buyers of additional properties and companies

If you buy a residential property for more than £40,000 after 31 October 2024 and before 1 April 2025 and it is not your only residential property, you must pay a 5% SDLT surcharge on the standard SDLT (as set out below). Before the Autumn Budget, the surcharge was 3%.

The same surcharge applies to companies and other non-natural persons (such as partnerships) buying property up to £500,000. On purchases over £500,000, companies pay a single rate of 17% (up from 15%).

Consideration

SDLT rate

Up to £250,000

 5%

So much as exceeds £250,000 but does not exceed £925,000

 10%

So much as exceeds £925,000 but does not exceed £1.5m

 15%

The remainder (if any)

 17%

For such transactions on or after 1 April 2025, the rates are as follows:

Consideration

SDLT rate 

Up to £125,000

 5%

So much as exceeds £125,000 but does not exceed £250,000

 7%

So much as exceeds £250,000 but does not exceed £925,000

 10%

So much as exceeds £925,000 but does not exceed £1.5m

 15%

The remainder (if any)

 17%

Purpose of the SDLT increases

The government expects the higher rates of SDLT payable on purchases of residential property to “disincentivise the acquisition of second homes and buy-to-let properties, freeing up housing stock for main home and first-time buyers”. Whether this will be the case in practice and what impact this has on an already competitive rental market remains to be seen.

If you have any queries regarding SDLT on residential property, please contact Daniel Broughton at [email protected].