It is unclear whether the application has been made on notice or without notice, or (if the application was made without notice), whether an occupation order has already been made. It is assumed that, in either case, the court has not specifically directed the respondent to file a statement. The Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, Pt 10 does not include any specific requirement for the respondent to an application for an occupation order to file and serve a statement in response to the applicant's statement. If, when listing the application for a hearing, the court has directed that

It is not always clear cut when it comes to interpreting the language and meaning of a restrictive covenant, and each case will turn on its own facts. However, save where the context suggests otherwise, the starting point for the construction of a covenant is the natural or ordinary meaning of the words used or their conventional usage. The essential question of construction is the meaning that the wording of the covenant would convey to a reasonable person having all the background knowledge that would have been reasonably available to the parties when they were at the time of the contract. This exercise is to be conducted

The Court of Appeal case of Caradon District Council v Paton and Bussell held that the concept of using a property as a private dwelling house involves its use, at least in some way, as a home; thus where a right to buy conveyance contained a restrictive covenant not to use the property or permit it to be used for any use other than that

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 introduced a new restructuring plan procedure. While a restructuring plan does not result in an automatic stay,

The extent of an easement is a question of fact and interpretation as to what is permissible under the grant. ‘Context is everything’ (Risegold v Escala), and the intention of the parties, objectively determined, at the time of the grant, is highly relevant to the task of interpretation. The easement in this scenario appears to be reasonably broad in its terms, and includes the right to

This Q&A raises the steps which must be taken by tenants seeking to exercise their rights under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (LTA 1987). Lessees of residential flats have the right of first refusal where their landlord wishes to dispose of an interest in the freehold. Those rights exist under LTA 1987. LTA 1987 applies where there are at least two flats held by qualifying tenants and the number of flats they hold is more than 50% of the total number of flats in the premises. In broad terms, most lessees of long leases on a ground rent will be qualifying tenants for the purposes of LTA 1987. The landlord who intends to make a disposal of an interest affecting the premises in which the flats are situated must, subject to certain exceptions which do not apply where the interest is in respect

A contractual right of pre-emption is an arrangement which requires a landowner, should it decide to sell all or part of its land, to offer it to the beneficiary of the right usually for a price and on terms determined in accordance with a formula set out in the pre-emption agreement. In Pritchard v Briggs, the Court of Appeal held that a right of pre-emption itself does not create an interest in land because it gives no immediate right to call for a conveyance. This meant that a pre-emption right was not an interest in land capable of protection by registration. However, the majority of the court suggested, obiter, that the right 'matures' into a proprietary interest when the obligation to make the offer arises. Following Pritchard v Briggs, a right of pre-emption granted before 13 October 2003 over unregistered land, may,

Whether or not a right of occupation amounts to an interest in possession (an analysis which determines the tax treatment) will depend on the particular facts and circumstances of the case. Interests which fall short of full life interests are still capable of being interests in possession for trust and tax law purposes. The

Does the landlord have to become a member of the Company? Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, s 74 (CLRA 2002) provides that: The persons who are entitled to be members of a company which is a RTM company in relation to premises are— • qualifying tenants of flats contained in the premises, and • from the date on which it acquires the right to manage (referred to in this Chapter as the “acquisition date”), landlords under leases of the whole or any part of the premises So the Landlord may, but does not have to, be a member of the RTM company. Is consent or approval required from the landlord, or does the landlord need to be notified in advance, for the Company to replace the windows? We

Under Part 2, Chapter 1 (sections 71–113) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, leaseholders of flats are given the right to take over the management of the building in which their flat is situated without having to prove shortcomings on the part of their landlord and without having to pay compensation

Meaning of ‘rebuilding’ Depending always on the context in which the term is used, the Court of Appeal confirmed in Risegold v Escala that, in general terms, ‘rebuilding’ is not limited to, although it clearly includes, the reconstruction of an existing building to be as originally built or similar. It could also, for example, include the demolition of the existing building(s) and the re-purposing of the cleared site for other purposes (eg as a car park or an open air storage area). The fact that ‘rebuilding’ has a restricted meaning in the context of planning legislation or a leasehold covenant does not mean that it should bear a similarly restricted meaning in, say, a right of entry provision (against a background where the parties must have contemplated when the right was reserved that there would be possible changes to the land and buildings in the future, with the consequence that flexibility of meaning was required to make the right work in a sensible fashion). The Court of Appeal went

A scheme of arrangement does not result in any stay or moratorium on commencing or continuing proceedings (unless the creditor is a scheme creditor as defined in the scheme documentation, which usually only applies to the company's lenders). A non-scheme