Tricia Hemans practises in all areas of commercial and residential landlord and tenant and real property law. She is interested in all areas of the law, where they impinge on property related matters, such as professional negligence and insolvency law. Tricia has particular experience of commercial and residential possession proceedings (both mortgage and tenancy disputes), charging orders and collective enfranchisement disputes before the First Tier Tribunal.
As a junior tenant, Tricia has a busy county court practice, frequently acting for parties in trials and applications. She also appears regularly in the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and has experience appearing in the Chancery and Queens Bench Divisions of the High Court. Tricia also has experience of mediation advocacy.
Tami Jane Wallace v Central London County Court and others (2016): Tricia appeared for the successful interested party in the Admin Court to oppose an application for permission to claim judicial review
Mortgages 1 Limited v Hossein Gharaie (2016): Tricia appeared in the Queen’s Bench division of the High Court and successfully opposed an application for permission to appeal
Area Estates Ltd and others v Moira Hanley: Tricia acted for the successful tenants in collective enfranchisement dispute pursuant to the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. In two separate but related claims, Tricia was successful in arguing for an order determining the terms of acquisition and an order vesting the freehold interest in the nominee purchaser.
O'Brien v D'Aoust (January 2016): Tricia appeared for the Defendant in a 3 day county court trial before a circuit judge. The dispute related to the location of a boundary between two properties and the existence and extent of a right of way.
Ramesh Kerai v Narinda Sharma (LON/00AE/OLR/2015/0750): Tricia appeared for the successful applicant in an application for costs before the First-tier Tribunal. The Tribunal, pursuant to Rule 13 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, ordered the Respondent to pay the Applicant’s costs incurred and incidental to the Respondent unreasonably defending and conducting proceedings.