Chris Bryden

This Q&A discusses the circumstances under which it might be possible to claim a discount in the value of a business asset for inheritance tax purposes on the basis that the asset is jointly owned.

This Q&A considers the doctrine of surrender by operation of law.

This Q&A considers whether, if a defendant dies before proceedings start and no personal representative or next of kin available, would it be the claimant’s responsibility to propose a representative for the deceased’s estate under CPR 19, or this decision can be left to the court. It also consider whether, if the claimant must make a proposal, they can nominate a firm of solicitors with their consent and will the claimant be responsible for the legal costs of the solicitors they nominate.

This Q&A considers the implications of a defendant telling the court that it is withdrawing its defence in full a few days before the trial.

This Q&A considers whether a freehold owner, who is not named as the landlord in an AT or AST, can still obtain possession of their property by way of a s 8, ground 1 notice.

If a freeholder insists on agreeing their recoverable costs under section 60 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (LRHUDA 1993) before they will agree to a premium, will this preclude the leaseholder from making a post-completion application to the First-tier Tribunal under LRHUDA 1993, s 91(2)(d) to have those costs determined?The Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (LRHUDA 1993) makes provision for tenants of flats in a building to acquire the freehold from their landlord and for tenants of flats to obtain the grant of a new lease with an additional 90-year term at a peppercorn rent (LRHUDA 1993, s 56(1)). The procedure operates by the tenant serving a notice containing the information contained in LRHUDA 1993, s 42 (referred to as a section 42 notice). The landlord then serves a counter-notice pursuant to LRHUDA 1993, s 45. If the parties are unable to agree the premium or terms for the new lease, the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (FTT) can make a determination within strict time limits for an application.By LRHUDA 1993, s 60, a tenant who gives notice under section 42 is liable for the landlord’s reasonable costs of and incidental to any investigation reasonably undertaken of the tenant’s right to a new lease; any valuation obtained for the purpose of fixing the premium; and the grant of a new lease.LRHUDA 1993, s 91 provides that the FTT has jurisdiction to determine any of those matters in dispute that are set out in LRHUDA 1993, s 91(2). At LRHUDA 1993, s 91(2)(d), this includes the amount and liability for costs as set out in LRHUDA 1993, s 60. The jurisdiction of the FTT is to make such a determination ‘in default of agreement’.In this scenario, the landlord is seeking to make it a condition of agreement to a premium that the costs liability under LRHUDA 1993, s 60 is agreed. It is of course open to the parties to reach an agreement in this regard, but the landlord cannot prevent the tenant from making an application for a determination of the premium to the FTT under LRHUDA 1993, s 48 (provided two months from the counter-notice have passed and such application is still in time). If the parties do reach an agreement as to those costs, there will be an agreement and as such the FTT will not have jurisdiction to deal with an assessment of their reasonableness under LRHUDA 1993, s 91. However, the costs and delay arising from the need to make an application may outweigh the benefit of having the FTT assess the reasonableness of the costs.For further guidance, see Practice Note: Guide to lease extensions of flats under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.

This Q&A outlines the protections afforded by the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 for spouses that have a connection with England and Wales.

This Q&A considers bankruptcy and transaction at undervalue and what is the ‘relevant time’ for a transaction at an undervalue.

This Q&A considers whether, if a joint tenant loses the right to rent, due to immigration law restrictions, before they move into a residential property, they are still liable to pay rent under the AST or the contract has been frustrated and therefore terminated.

Would an adult who is adopted by a testator under the law of another jurisdiction be treated as adopted under the law of England and therefore treated as the child of the testator?

This Q&A considers whether a landlord who does not have a copy of the section 21 notice the landlord has served can obtain a possession order through accelerated or standard possession proceedings.

This Q&A considers whether a tenant can serve the acceptance of a notice on the ‘care of’ address of the landlord only, where the landlord had served a section 5 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 notice on the tenant.

This Q&A considers whether a Landlord can decide not to go to auction after the landlord has served a section 5B notice under Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 and whether the landlord needs to serve a further section 5 notice.

This Q&A considers whether a tenant paying increased rent on a residential statutory periodic tenancy is seen to be acceptance of the new rent.

This Q&A considers whether the lodgers in a landlords property become tenants, if the landlord loses mental capacity and moves out his property to a care home and a deputy is appointed.

This Q&A considers when a trespasser/occupier can apply to the courts to be reinstated to the property where a landlord physically re-takes possession of a commercial property from them.

This Q&A considers what the effect on the landlord is if the landlord takes a deposit of more than five weeks’ rent in relation to a tenancy granted in June 2019.

This Q&A considers whether a tenant is allowed to bring a claim for tenancy deposit compensation if the landlord takes a tenancy deposit but the prescribed information does not include the landlord's name and address (rather it provides letting agents details as landlord's c/o address etc).

This Q&A considers which options are available to highway authorities in dealing with the situation in which a landowner has altered a highway retaining wall in such a way that the alterations have damaged its structural integrity and made it a risk to highway users. It considers the highway authority's powers to seek repair through agreement and take action itself if no agreement is forthcoming.

This Q&A considers whether a deed of variation should be prepared in addition to a licence for consent if a lease contains an absolute prohibition against alterations, but the landlord is happy to consent to the works. It also considers, if the lease is not varied by deed, and only a licence to consent is prepared, it can operate as a surrender and re-grant by operation of law.