For the purposes of this Q&A, we have assumed that the lease is not one to which the provisions of sections 11–12 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA 1985) apply. Criss-cross schemes A ‘criss-cross scheme’ is a method of transferring the reversion to the tenants with a view to minimise the ongoing involvement of the developer. It can only be used where the building comprises two flats or maisonettes. Rather than an arrangement under which the freehold reversion of the entire building is transferred to one of the tenants, in the criss-cross scheme, the tenant of the ground floor flat becomes the reversioner of the first floor flat and vice versa. The relationship of landlord and tenant thereafter subsists between each of them, and the benefit

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: On a freezing night in January 2017, while travelling intoxicated on the night tube, Mr Ovu walked through marked emergency access doors into a non-public area of Canning Town tube station. Those one-way doors were later closed behind him by station staff. Seemingly unaware that he could leave the station via a further set of doors at the end of the open-air emergency exit route, Mr Ovu walked to and fro for some time before falling from a staircase to his death. His body was not discovered for six hours. Having determined that Mr Ovu was a trespasser at the time of his death, the judge considered the ambit and extent of statutory and common law duties owed to him by London Underground. The judge concluded that such duties did not encompass the risk of falling from stairs and sustaining injury, that finding leading to the dismissal of the claim. Written by Christopher Walker, barrister at Devereux Chambers.

If the tenant fails to leave the property upon expiry of the section 21 notice, possession proceedings will have to be brought. As such, the incoming landlord will face the risk that they will not purchase the property with vacant possession, and that court proceedings will need to be instigated to obtain the same. That being said, it also needs to be considered whether or not the incoming landlord is entitled to rely upon the section 21 notice served by the outgoing landlord. If not, the process will need to be started again and a fresh period of notice given. Section 21 of the Housing

Positive covenant The burden of a positive covenant does not run with the land and therefore a successor in title to B will not be bound unless it has entered into a direct covenant with A. See Practice Note: Positive covenants—binding successors in title. However, prima facie and subject to the below, the covenant will be enforceable between the original parties. Uncertainty Generally, a court will try to avoid finding that a covenant is void for uncertainty (see A uncertain world: The New Law Journal—167 NLJ 7742, p15). Recent caselaw indicates that a court is likely to adopt a literal interpretation of the document (Arnold v Britton) and will be reluctant to re-write an

While there is no clear authority on this point, where a person buys land with the benefit of the right to lay and connect into services on the vendor’s land and particularly where, as here the purchaser as dominant owner covenants to pay a proportion of the costs of maintenance of the services in the servient land depending on the amount of user, it may be arguable that the right to actually use those services is implied. There are two potentially helpful cases in this area. The first is Donovan v Rana. In

Transfers are commonly executed in counterpart and the part executed by the transferor is submitted to HM Land Registry to register the transfer.  It is therefore common for the official copy of a transfer to only show execution by the transferor. This does not necessarily mean that the transfer was not executed by the transferee and it is worth checking the title deeds to confirm the position. Similarly, if a lease has been executed in counterpart, the official copy of that lease may only show execution by the landlord. In Goodman v Gallant, the Court of Appeal considered the effect of a clause in a conveyance which included

In answering this Q&A, we have assumed that the sale of the property is subject to the Standard Commercial Property Conditions (SCPCs) (Third Edition). SCPCs, para [7.6.5] states that: ‘If after completion the seller will remain bound by any obligation affecting the property which was disclosed to the buyer before the contract was made, but the law does not imply any covenant by the buyer

The transfer appears to be in tolerably common form—a tripartite agreement between vendor or lessor, purchaser or lessee and a management company. In the case of long leases, the developer may wish to have no future involvement in the block once all leases have been granted and so a management company is established to ensure that essential services are provided. A developer of a freehold estate might retain an interest in roads and grassed areas and the like and similarly will establish a management company to attend

It will often be the case that where a landowner sells a parcel of land but retains other land, the conveyance will contain easements or covenants restricting the use which is to be made of the land conveyed (such as limiting construction on the land), or reserving rights such as a right of way. Such covenants will, if restrictive and touch and concern the land, ordinarily be enforceable by and against successors in title. Section 78 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA 1925) provides that a covenant is deemed to be made with the covenantee, successors in

Where an individual makes a gift of property, but continues to enjoy a benefit from it, there is generally a reservation of benefit, so that it remains part of the donor’s estate for inheritance tax (IHT) purposes, see section 102(1) of the Finance Act 1986 (FA 1986). But if the property is an interest in land, the donor’s continued occupation is disregarded if it is for full consideration: FA 1986, Sch 20, para 6(1)(a). So, if (and so long as) the donor gives full consideration for his or her occupation, there

In considering this question, the first place to look will be the CPR. These give some guidance regarding trial timetables generally, see CPR 39.4 which states that: ‘When the court sets a timetable for a trial in accordance with rule 28.6 (fixing or confirming the trial date and giving directions—fast track) or rule 29.8 (setting a trial timetable and confirming the trial date or week—multi-track) it will do so in consultation with the parties.’ CPR 39.4 provides some general guidance that, when the court sets a timetable for trial before

This Q&A assumes that: • the trustees originally held the entire beneficial interest in the land on trust for a number of life tenants, with different remainder beneficiaries for each settled share • some but not all of the remainder interests have vested absolutely Generally speaking, where a beneficiary of trust becomes absolutely entitled to trust property as against the trustees (which would have the effect that the beneficiary has the exclusive right to direct how the property shall be dealt with), there is a deemed disposal by the trustees for capital gains tax (CGT) purposes