Chris Bryden

This Q&A considers liability for the costs of transferring a demonstrative legacy to a non-resident beneficiary of a deceased estate.

Are the costs of the landlord applying to the First Tier Tribunal to challenge the validity of the tenant’s section 42 notice recoverable from the tenant under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993?The Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (LRHUDA 1993) allows an individual qualifying tenant to acquire a new lease for an additional term of 90 years at a peppercorn rent by giving notice under LRHUDA 1993, s 42 of his claim to exercise the right. By LRHUDA 1993, s 45 the landlord may give a counter-notice by the date specified in the section 42 notice either admitting the right to acquire a new lease or not admitting it. An admission is binding but where there is a challenge to the validity of the section 42 notice (for example because the tenant has failed to provide the required information or is not a qualifying tenant) the landlord will serve a counter-notice not admitting that right.LRHUDA 1993, s 46 provides that where such a counter-notice has been given the court will consider on the application of the landlord whether the tenant had the right to acquire a new lease and if it is satisfied that the tenant does not have the right, will make a declaration to that effect. The landlord must make such an application not later than the end of the period of two months following the giving of the counter-notice. The effect of a declaration is that the tenant’s notice ceases to have effect.LRHUDA 1993, s 60 makes provision for the tenant to pay the reasonable costs of and incidental to any investigation reasonably undertaken of the right to a new lease, any valuation for the purposes of LRHUDA 1993, s 56 and the grant of a new lease, but does not specify that the costs of a section 46 application are payable by the tenant. LRHUDA 1993, s 60(5) however specifies that a tenant shall not be liable under the section for any costs which a party to any proceedings before a tribunal incurs in connection with the proceedings.As a result a landlord can recover the reasonable costs covered by LRHUDA 1993, s 56, which will include the investigation undertaken as to the right to a new lease, and which costs may include advice in this regard, but will not be able to recover their costs generally of the proceedings relating to the validity challenge. The tenant however will not be able to serve a fresh notice for a period of 12 months.The Tribunal retains a discretion under rule 13 of the First-tier Tribunal’s procedural rules to make an order in respect of costs where a person has acted unreasonably in bringing, defending or conducting proceedings in residential property or leasehold cases, though this is a somewhat narrow provision.See generally Practice Notes: Guide to lease extensions of flats under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.

This Q&A looks at cases that deal with whether the payment of rent, where the parents are unmarried, is a 'maintenance' obligation.

This Q&A considers whether coronavirus (COVID-19) will impact on any formal requirements for a valid Will.

This Q&A looks at whether a Form C8 (Confidential contact details) can be submitted to protect a party’s contact details contained in a Form E financial statement and whether the duty of disclosure takes precedence over the protection of a party’s details.

This Q&A considers whether there are any notifications duties for purchasers of a residential property with asbestos in the roof.

This Q&A considers whether there are restrictions on a prisoner entering into a contract.

This Q&A considers how the courts have generally dealt with a failure to comply with an obligation under section 21 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

This Q&A considers the application of Article 21 of Regulation EC 593/2008, Rome I in civil and commercial contracts.

This Q&A considers whether, as regards the contracting-out procedure under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, a solicitor who is instructed to deal with the statutory declaration, SDLT and registration without negotiating or advising on the lease can be considered independent in their role in relation to signing the tenant's statutory declaration.

This Q&A considers the procedure that a beneficial interest in a house owned by a suspected nominee, on behalf of a judgment debtor, be realised in enforcement proceedings?

This Q&A looks at whether a clubhouse can be considered ancillary to the primary use of land as a rugby pitch (and therefore fall within open space policy), despite the clubhouse also being used for social/entertainment purposes.

This Q&A considers whether a cohabitant who is claiming an interest in a property by virtue of a promissory estoppel or constructive trust apply for an order to prevent her eviction under Family Law Act 1996 s36.

This Q&A considers how the owner of two plots of land covered by a section 106 agreement can protect the future use of both plots if either is transferred to a third party.

This Q&A considers whether a conveyance that grants the vendor a right to deal with any neighbouring premises as it sees fit can amount to an easement despite not being expressed as one.

This Q&A considers whether a public body can judicially review its own decision.

This Q&A considers whether a County Court judgment can be transferred to the High Court for enforcement by way of a writ of control if there has been no default on instalment payments ordered by the county court.

This Q&A considers whether the court can make an order in financial remedy proceedings in relation to overseas assets.

This Q&A considers if a court in England can rely on an order from a Family Court in Hawaii declaring who the natural father is following genetic testing by a company that is approved in the US, but who is not one of the approved companies in the UK.

This Q&A considers whether the penalties under section 214 of the Housing Act 2004 can be imposed on a landlord where they have already returned an unregistered deposit or returned the deposit prior to providing prescribed information to the tenant.