Health and safety

Owners and occupiers of commercial and residential premises are subject to various statutory requirements aimed at ensuring the safety of their premises and those living or working in them. Responsibility for compliance may fall solely on the owner or the occupier or may be divided between them.

The materials in this topic cover some of the requirements relating to the safety of premises and those who occupy or visit them which are commonly encountered in practice.

Building Safety Act 2022

The Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA 2022) introduces fundamental reforms to the law and regulation of building safety, which seek to ‘secure the safety of people in or about buildings and improve the standard of buildings’.

For more information on the various obligations and provisions, see Practice Notes: Building Safety Act 2022—key provisions and issues, Building Safety Act 2022—key issues for property practitioners, Building Safety Act 2022—role and impact of the Building Safety Regulator, Building Safety Act 2022—what is a higher-risk building?, Building Safety Act 2022—higher-risk buildings in occupation and the Accountable Person and Building Safety Act 2022—landlord and tenant issues.

Fire

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 section 75A FA 2003 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