In Re B (A Child), Munby P considered an appeal against HHJ Bellamy’s judgment which had attempted to provide guidance as to the use of covert recordings in private law proceedings. It was noted that the issue of covert recordings is becoming ever more common as technology develops and makes it easier to accomplish. While Munby P did not attempt to give comprehensive guidance in his judgment, he noted several considerations (at para [14]), ie that: ‘Whatever the nature of the recording, a number of issues are likely to arise. Again without any pretence to completeness it is obvious that questions may arise as to (i) the lawfulness of

Non-compete restriction Non-compete clauses are contractual obligations restricting a party from competing with the business of another. They are a form of restrictive covenant. As with any breach of a contractual clause, a breach of a valid restrictive covenant could result in a claim for damages to reflect the losses suffered. Breach may also entitle a party to seek an injunction to prevent a promisor from potentially breaching an agreed restriction. However, in some circumstances, such an agreement may be unenforceable if it is subject to the common law doctrine of restraint of

In principle, if the burden of the restrictive covenant has been formally released then the failure to alter the title to the land which previously benefitted does not permit the burden to be re-imposed.

Once a person gains the status of protected occupier or statutory tenant under Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 (R(A)A 1976), he retains the protection of that Act if another relevant licence or relevant tenancy is granted of the same or another dwelling. Although Housing Act 1988 (HA 1988) introduced a general principle that new interests granted after 14 January 1989 were to be assured rather than protected

Dispute Resolution analysis: This decision considered an application for a worldwide asset freeze in the context of a claim concerning the Russian energy sector and the alleged conspiracy and coercion emanating from the Russian State. The court granted the order, finding that the claimant had passed (if barely) the thresholds for establishing a good arguable case and real risk of asset dissipation. The case is of particular interest as it argues that the courts should apply the orthodox test of ‘a good arguable case’ when considering applications for freezing injunctions. The court refused to follow a number of first instance decisions where the three-stage test for ‘a good arguable case’ in a jurisdiction context had been applied to freezing order cases. The judge was clear that the tests used the same words but served different purposes with distinct underlying policy. Written by Lauren Godfrey, barrister at Gatehouse Chambers.

The reversionary lease in this instance is used to describe a lease in which the right to possession is essentially postponed to a later date. The term can also be used in the context of a lease which is to take effect upon the expiry of an existing lease, which actually accords with the technical definition of the phrase. The term should not be confused with a lease of the reversion, also often termed as an overriding or concurrent lease. In this context, the reversion is the landlord’s

Agreements for sale of commercial property The Standard Commercial Property Conditions (First Edition) were published in May 1999. At that stage, it had become clear that the Standard Conditions of Sale required considerable amendment to meet the realities of a commercial property transaction, particularly with regard to insurance, passing of risk and late completion. The Second Edition (2nd edition—Encyclopaedia of Forms and Precedents vol 38(1)) came into force on 1 June 2004 and these conditions were incorporated into many contracts for the sale and purchase of commercial property. The current edition is the Third Edition—2018 Revision (Third Edition). However, it is extremely rare for the SCPCs to be incorporated unamended. Most contracts exclude a number of conditions and substantially amend others. Part 1 and Part 2 conditions Part 1 comprises SCPCs 1–12 and covers the main terms of the contract, such as incumbrances affecting the property, title, insurance and completion. The Part 2 conditions only apply if expressly incorporated into the contract and cover VAT, Transfers as a Going

The Third Edition The third edition of the Standard Commercial Property Conditions was published on 27 April 2017. It was an update to Standard Commercial Property Conditions (Second Edition) (the Second Edition), which was published in June 2004. It was intended to reflect the changes in law and practice in commercial property transactions that occurred in the intervening period. In March 2018, a minor further revision, the Standard Commercial Property Conditions (Third Edition—2018 Revision) (the Third Edition), was published. It made only one change, which was to amend the definition of ‘clearing bank’ in SCPC 1.1.1(c) following changes to the Clearing House Automated Payment System. Summary of the main differences between the Second Edition and the Third Edition Second Edition Third Edition Value Added Tax (VAT) Standard Commercial Property Conditions (SCPC) 1.4.1—seller warrants that the sale is not a supply for VAT purposes. Alternatives in SCPC A1 (sale is standard rated) and SCPC A2 (transfer of going concern). SCPC 2.1—seller warrants that the sale is standard rated.

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) Professional Standard on Service Charges in Commercial Property, 1st edition (the Service Charge Standard) (Service charges in commercial property, 1st edition) came into effect for all service charge periods commencing from 1 April 2019. Originally issued as a professional statement, it was subsequently re-issued as a professional standard in September 2023. RICS confirmed that ‘[t]he regulatory requirements remain the same and no material changes have been made to the document’. Although it is a first edition professional standard, it supersedes all previous versions of the RICS Code of Practice on Service Charges in Commercial Property (the Service Charge Code): see A summary of the main differences between the Service Charge Standard and the Service Charge Code. Note: In June 2025, RICS published Service charges in commercial property, 2nd edition effective from 31 December 2025. For revised and additional guidance in relation to the second edition,

The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) Professional Standard on Service charges in commercial property, 2nd edition (the Service Charge Standard) is effective from 31 December 2025. It supercedes the Service charges in commercial property, 1st edition, which was originally issued as a professional statement in September 2018 (effective from 1 April 2019) and subsequently re-issued as a professional standard in September 2023. For a summary of the provisions of the 1st edition, see Practice Note: A review of the RICS Professional Standard on Service Charges in Commercial Property (1st edition) [Archived]. The main aims of the Service Charge Standard are to: • improve general standards and promote best practice, uniformity, fairness and transparency in the management and administration of services charges in commercial property • ensure the timely issue of budgets and service charge year end accounts • reduce the causes of disputes and provide guidance on the resolution of disputes if they arise, and • provide guidance to lawyers, their clients (whether landlords or

This Q&Aassumes that: • the land was registered at HM Land Registry on or before 12 October 2003 • the easement was an overriding interest as at 12 October 2003 This Q&A assumes that the query refers to the priority of the right of way being lost, however, in relation to other ways that an easement might be ‘lost’ see Practice Notes: • Easements—extinguishing, and • Easements lost by abandonment Priority under Land Registration Act 2002 The basic rule for priority in relation to registered land under the Land Registration Act 2002 (LRA 2002) is that is that the priority of an earlier interest is not affected by a later disposition (LRA 2002, s 28). Interests binding an estate or charge continue to have priority over interests transferred or created by a later disposition.

This query raises the effect of a notice of claim to exercise the right to manage under Part 2 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (CLRA 2002) being withdrawn. The reason for the notice being withdrawn is not clear, but that does not affect the parties’ rights and obligations under CLRA 2002. CLRA 2002, s 71(1) gives the right to manage premises to a company set