Environmental due diligence and insurance

For further guidance on how environmental issues may crop up in sales, leases, corporate transactions, real estate finance and property development, Environmental issues in transactions—overview. For further guidance on the various energy schemes in relation to buildings and renewable apparatus, see Energy and renewable apparatus in buildings—overview.

The purpose of environmental due diligence

The purpose of environmental due diligence is to:

  1. assess the risk of contaminated land liabilities

  2. investigate other risks associated with land and buildings such as asbestos, fly-tipping, subsidence, Japanese knotweed, storage tanks and energy performance issues

  3. identify any material non-compliance issues or threatened proceedings or claims associated with the property or target

  4. highlight any capital expenditure requirements to comply with permits or legislation, such as works to comply with minimum energy performance standards

  5. check if any environmental permits need to be applied for or transferred

  6. provide recommendations to help mitigate these risks as far as possible through contractual protections, price negotiations, further investigations or environmental insurance

  7. ascertain the environmental, social and governance (ESG) creditials of an entity

For further guidance, see Practice Notes:

  1. Environmental

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Property News

Market value, distributions and notional transactions—key SDLT lessons from Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC

Tax analysis: In Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC, the Court of Appeal considered the basis on which stamp duty land tax (SDLT) should be assessed and whether that resulted in SDLT being paid on the market value, the actual consideration paid, or on some other basis for a complex transaction within a corporate group. The taxpayer argued that the ‘Case 3’ exception under section 54(4) of the Finance Act 2003 (FA 2003) applied, which would result in SDLT being charged on the actual consideration. HMRC argued that the exception did not apply, which would result in SDLT being paid on the market value of the property. Alternatively, HMRC argued that if the exception did apply then the anti-avoidance provisions at FA 2003, s 75A applied, potentially resulting in an even higher SDLT charge. The Court of Appeal held that although the Case 3 exception applied, the anti-avoidance provision in FA 2003, s 75A also applied. This resulted in SDLT being assessed on an aggregate amount that was even higher than the property's market value (although HMRC did not seek to increase its assessment beyond market value). Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. As explained by Jon Stevens, partner, and Rory Clarke, solicitor, at DWF Law LLP, this decision deals with the interaction of a number of complex SDLT provisions and clarifies the SDLT provisions relating to transfers to connected companies and the SDLT anti-avoidance provisions, with implications for corporate structuring and tax planning.

View Property by content type :

Popular documents