We use cookies to offer you a better experience and analyse site traffic.

By continuing to use this website, you consent to the use of cookies in accordance with our Cookie Policy.

Our strength
is in our groups

Areas of Expertise

Howard Lederman

Call 1982
Telephone 020 7831 0222
Email howard.lederman@42br.com


Profile Privacy Notice vCard


  • Commercial landlord and tenant, including rent reviews, dilapidations, forfeiture and assignment of leases, and lease renewals
  • Residential landlord and tenant, including leasehold enfranchisement and service charges
  • Telecommunications law related to real property
  • Options, Easements, restrictive covenants and proprietary estoppel
  • Property finance, mortgages and consumer credit
  • Property related insolvency and fraud
  • Issues relating to title and the sale and registration of land
  • Professional negligence: solicitors, valuers, agents
  • Timeshare – advisory and contentious issues


  • “An experienced practitioner in all aspects of Chambers’ Civil work”

Professional memberships

  • Property Bar Association
  • Professional Negligence Bar Association
  • Part time Tribunal Judge Residential Property Tribunal Service
  • Part time Tribunal Judge War Pension and Armed Forces Compensation Chamber

Selected cases

  • Geyfords Ltd v O’Sullivan [2015] UKUT 683 (LC);
  • Garcha v Charity Commission for England and Wales [2015] W.T.L.R. 453
  • Shellpoint Trustees Ltd v Barnett [2012] 3 E.G.L.R. 115
  • Mohammadi v Shellpoint Trustees Ltd [2010] 1 All E.R. 433
  • Beardsley Theobalds Retirement Benefit Scheme Trustees v Yardley [2011] EWHC 1380
  • Trans-World Investments Ltd v Dadarwalla [2008] 1 P. & C.R. 18
  • Sahota v Singh [2006] EWHC 344 (Ch)
  • Mohammadi v Anston Investments Ltd [2004] H.L.R. 8
  • Soteriou v Ultrachem Ltd [2004] I.R.L.R. 870
  • Pratt v Medwin (2003-04) 6 I.T.E.L.R. 131
  • H (A Child) v S (Damages) Court of Appeal [2003] Q.B. 965
  • Straudley Investments Ltd v Mount Eden Land Ltd (No.1) (1997) 74 P. & C.R. 306
  • Mallory v Butler [1991] 1 W.L.R. 458


  • Recovery of legal costs as a service charge – what has changed since Arnold and Britton? L. & T. Review 2016,
  • The purpose of the filter’ published by Trusts and Estates Law & Tax Journal
  • The Financial Ombudsman Service – Timeshare related claims
  • The First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)
  • Sub editor International Timesharing


  • BA Jurisprudence (1st class) Hertford College Oxford

News & Events

News & events

Recovery of Legal Costs as a Service Charge – What Has Changed Since Arnold v Britton?

The Supreme Court in Arnold v Britton [2015] A.C. 1619 has ruled that there are no special rules of interpretation which apply to service charge clauses. The old “restrictive” approach to the interpretation of service charge clauses has been criticised. The recovery of a landlord’s legal costs as a service charge remains a troublesome area, where the impact of Arnold v Britton is still being worked out.

23rd February 2016 Read more

Dispensing with the need to consult about service charges – at what cost?

The Supreme Court has changed the law about dispensing with the need for consultation for qualifying works or qualifying long term agreements where tenants of residential dwellings have to pay service charges: Daejan v Benson [2013] UKSC 14. The requirements for consultation in the 2003 Regulations (2003 SI 1987) are complex and lengthy. They vary according to

8th March 2013 Read more