Part I of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (LTA 1987) gives qualifying tenants of flats a right of first refusal enabling them to purchase the interest of their landlord if and when he proposes to dispose of it, and to nominate a person or persons to purchase the interest on their behalf. The right is framed in negative terms, prohibiting the landlord from making a relevant disposal without first serving a notice on the qualifying tenants and requiring that the disposal is made in accordance with the statutory requirements. LTA 1987, s 5D(4) and (5) provide that in relation

What is a section 8 notice? A notice served under section 8 of the Housing Act 1988 (HA 1988) is served against an Assured or Assured Shorthold Tenancy prior to the landlord seeking possession by way of a court order. There are certain prescribed grounds for possession which are set out in HA 1988, Sch 2. The section 8 notice must specify which of those specified grounds the landlord intends to rely on, and the ways in which the landlord alleges that the grounds have been made out. The section 8 notice is a ‘Notice of Seeking Possession’ rather than a ‘Notice to Quit’. That is to say, at the expiry of the notice, the tenancy does not come to an end. Only the court has the power to bring the tenancy to an end by way of an order for possession. The power to dispense with a section 8 notice It

Section 83 of the Public Health Act 1936 (PHA 1936) provides that where a local authority (upon consideration of a report from any of its officers or other information in its possession), is satisfied that any premises are in such a filthy or unwholesome condition as to be prejudicial to health or are verminous, the local authority must give notice to the owner/occupier of the premises requiring them to take such steps as may be specified in the notice to remedy the condition of the premises by cleansing and disinfecting them. PHA 1936, s 83(1A) also provides that the notice may require among other things for the removal of wallpaper or other covering of the walls, or,

Where a secure tenant ceases to occupy a property as their only or principal home, security is lost and cannot be regained by the re-occupation of the property (section 93(2) of the Housing Act 1985 (HA 1985)). Where security of tenure is lost, due to a parting of possession or subletting, security of tenure can never be regained. It is for the landlord to prove that the tenant has so lost security, see Hussey v Camden LBC (1995) 27 HLR 5, CA (not reported by LexisNexis®). If security is lost, the tenancy becomes a contractual tenancy and can be terminated

Schedule 2A to the Finance Act 2003 (FA 2003) introduced the concept of 'pre-completion transactions' (PCTs). FA 2003, Sch 2A replaced FA 2003, s 45. FA 2003, Sch 2A is a lengthy piece of legislation with complex and elaborate anti-avoidance provisions. HMRC released guidance on the application of the provisions in July 2013 which includes numerous examples of how the PCT are designed to apply in practice. This guidance

Failure to complete contract for the sale of land Time is generally not of the essence for completion of a contract for the sale of land. If the seller or the buyer delays completion, the defaulting party will be liable in damages (and for compensation under the Standard Conditions) but cannot rescind until time is made of the essence of the contract. It is for the party who is ready, willing and able to complete to make time of the essence by serving a notice to complete. If a valid notice to complete has been served and completion does not take place by the deadline (usually ten working days after the notice is given, excluding the day on which the notice was given) the defaulting party's breach can be accepted and the contract rescinded. Specific performance may be available where

A contractual right of pre-emption requires the landowner, should they decide to sell, to offer it to the holder of the right of pre-emption for a price which is either specified in the pre-emption agreement or is to be ascertained by a market valuation or by reference to a formula. In some cases, the holder of the right of pre-emption is simply entitled to be told of the landowner's wish to sell, following which the holder of the right of pre-emption has an opportunity to make an offer that may be accepted or rejected by the landowner. There is doubt whether a right of pre-emption is a 'contract for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land' for the purposes of section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous

This Q&A assumes that the company is in creditors' voluntary liquidation. A liquidator's powers in a creditors' voluntary winding-up are set out in sections 165–166 of, and Schedule 4 to, the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986). These powers are wide and include in particular: • the power to compromise, on such terms as may be agreed, debts and liabilities capable of resulting in debts • the power to carry

Land charges are registered to protect the interests, in unregistered land, of a person who does not hold the title deeds and thus, cannot physically control when and how the land is disposed of. A class D(ii) land charge is intended to protect a restrictive covenant which burdens unregistered land. As per Practice Note: Restrictive covenants—nature and characteristics, restrictive covenants bind successors-in-title of the covenantor provided that: • they are properly drafted and comply with certain equitable rules, and • they are recorded by registration of a land charge This means that if the covenant has not

Corporate Crime analysis: Max Hobbs, senior associate at Macfarlanes, considers the key takeaways of the Serious Fraud Office’s (SFO) annual report and accounts for 2023–2024 and what might be expected going forward.

This query concerns whether the owner of land (the servient owner) on which an existing septic tank is situated and over which a neighbour enjoys rights of drainage acquired by prescription is entitled to replace the existing tank with a modern treatment tank and whether the neighbour benefiting from that right of drainage (the dominant owner) can be required to contribute towards the costs of installing and maintaining such new apparatus. Can the servient owner replace the tank? Assuming

Acceptance of a contract may be express or may be inferred from words or conduct: Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Corporation. The test is whether a reasonable person in the position of the offeror would think that the offeree was by his conduct intending to accept the offer: IRC v Fry. Unilateral contracts are usually accepted by conduct. In the case of a bilateral contract, the offeree must make a counter-promise to the offeror which, in an appropriate case, could also be inferred from conduct. Acceptance will only be inferred