Committee publication · Correspondence · 26 February 2026
Letter from the Chair to TIME Investments dated 23 February 2026 concerning a further invitation to give oral evidence
From: Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee
Inquiry: Pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill
Summary
The HCLG Committee Chair invites TIME Investments to give oral evidence on the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill on 3 March 2026, after the company declined citing ongoing litigation. The Chair confirms a waiver to the sub judice resolution has been exercised, and assures that parliamentary privilege will protect any evidence from use in court proceedings.
Key findings
- TIME Investments declined the initial invitation citing involvement in ongoing litigation concerning the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024.
- A waiver to the sub judice resolution has been granted following discussions between the Speaker, Speaker's Counsel, and the Committee Chair, enabling pre-legislative scrutiny to proceed.
- Oral evidence given to the Committee will be protected by parliamentary privilege and inadmissible as evidence in court.
- The Committee seeks freeholder and institutional investor perspectives on the draft Bill's impact on existing rights.
- TIME Investments indicated willingness to submit detailed written evidence, prompting the Chair to question their reluctance to give oral testimony.
Tone
ProceduralTopics
Key actors
Florence Eshalomi MP, Nigel Ashfield, TIME Investments, Speaker's Counsel, Saira Salimi, House of Commons
Notable line
“… a waiver to the sub judice resolution is being exercised for our pre- legislative scrutiny, to enable the Committee to consider any aspect of the draft Bill on behalf of the House.”
Key Quotes
“The Committee is unlikely to regard the on-going litigation as a valid reason for TIME Investments not providing oral evidence on the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill.”
“… any oral evidence given to the Committee will be protected by parliamentary privilege and would therefore be inadmissible as evidence in court.”
“The Committee is keen to ensure that the views of freeholders and institutional investors are appropriately considered when scrutinising the draft Bill …”
Source · parliament.uk record ↗