A scheme's exoneration and indemnity clauses will protect trustees from personal liability but that protection will not apply in all circumstances. Exoneration clauses An exoneration clause, if effective, will mean that a trustee is not personally liable for acts or omissions which are covered by the clause. However, the exoneration clause is unlikely to apply in cases of fraud, dishonesty or deliberate breach of trust and may also exclude liability for gross negligence. In the case of professional trustees who are paid for their services, the exoneration clause may not cover any liability for negligence. In addition, trustees cannot be exonerated for civil penalties or fines for breach of legislation, and the exoneration clause will not protect them from third-party claims, ie claims from persons who are not a party to the trust (eg the scheme administrator or actuary). The court will construe an exoneration clause strictly, and the burden of proof is on the trustees to show that an

A buyer of a legal estate in land from trustees will not be affected by any of the trusts on which the land is held if the purchase price is paid to all the trustees (of whom there must be at least two) or to a trust corporation. Payment of the price in this manner means

The most common types of secondary issue in the UK are rights issues, open offers and placings. Rights issues and open offers are pre-emptive public offers meaning that existing shareholders are given the right to participate in the offer pro rata to their existing shareholdings. Existing shareholders therefore have the opportunity to benefit from any discount to market price at which the new shares are offered and to avoid a dilution of their shareholdings. In contrast, placings are issues of new shares to selected subscribers only and existing shareholders are not given the right to participate (although major shareholders may often be included among the placees). For this reason greater restrictions are placed on the amount of new shares that may be issued and the discount at which they may be acquired. Placings are usually structured so that a prospectus is not required and the process may take place in a matter of days. They are therefore generally quicker and more straightforward

We have assumed that the section 106 plan would be a lesser area than the application plan. The local planning authority (LPA) will prefer (and will likely insist) on the section 106 obligation being imposed on the entire area of land for which planning permission is sought. The simple reason for this is that if it has to take action to enforce the planning obligation(s)

Section 21(1) of the Housing Act 1988 provides that the court shall make an order for possession of a property let on an assured shorthold tenancy if, among other things, the 'landlord or, in the case of joint landlords, at least one of them has given to the tenant not less than two

There is no clear authority on this point. There are no binding precedents on whether the lack of an actual signature would invalidate a notice served under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 (HA 1988). There is no requirement in HA 1988, s 21 itself for a signature from the landlord (or their agent). It refers only to the landlord being required to give notice to the tenant. However, landlords are obliged to give any HA 1988, s 21 notice in the form prescribed by the Assured Tenancies and Agricultural Occupancies (Forms) (England) Regulations 2015, SI 2015/620. The current prescribed form for HA 1988, s 21 notice–Form 6A—includes a section with a space for a signature alongside spaces to be filled in with various details, such as the landlord’s name and address. The form also includes an

This question raises the issue of the validity of a section 21 notice issued pursuant to section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 (HA 1988) where the notice is only served in the name of one of the joint tenants. There would appear to be a prevailing view that HA 1988, s 21 notice must include the names of both tenants. This view is represented by an unreported County Court case of Hacking v Jones (2012) (not available in Lexis®Library) where the judge held that the notice was not valid because it did not include the names of both tenants. He reached this view notwithstanding that two separate notices had been served. His reasoning was based on his construction of HA 1988, ss 21(1)(b) and 21(4)(a). HA 1988, s 21(1)(b)

Section 42(3)(a) of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (LRHUDA 1993) requires the notice to state the name of the tenant and the address of the flat in respect of which they claim a new lease. In addition, LRHUDA 1993, s 42(3)(b) requires the notice to contain ‘sufficient particulars of that flat to identify the property to which the claim extends’. There is, therefore, no need to lift use the exact description of the demise from the lease. The address with perhaps the floor level should be enough. That said, if the flat is an unusual configuration and the address by itself isn’t

The court cannot entertain proceedings for possession of a dwelling house let on an assured tenancy without the landlord having first served on the tenant a notice pursuant to section 8 of the Housing Act 1988 (HA 1988) and the proceedings are commenced within the statutory time limits specified in the notice, or the court considers it just and equitable to dispense with the requirements of notice. Note that the notice period has been extended as a result of the Coronavirus Act 2020 and subsequent regulations. For further guidance, see Practice Note: Coronavirus (COVID-19)—implications for property [Archived]. The notice must be in the prescribed form. HA 1988, s 8(3) provides that by the form the landlord must inform the tenant that they intend to bring proceedings for possession of the dwelling house on one or more of the grounds set out in the notice and that the proceedings will not begin earlier

Rent-a-room applies to income from providing furnished residential accommodation in the taxpayer’s only or main residence. Under the rent-a-room scheme a taxpayer can be exempt from income tax on income from furnished accommodation in their only or main residence if the gross receipts they get are £7,500 or less. Where the relief is claimed, the taxpayer cannot also claim the expenses of the letting. ‘Residence’ is defined in section 787 of the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005 as: • a building or part of a building occupied or intended to be occupied as a separate

The first question to be determined is whether the individual concerned is genuinely self-employed. There are various considerations that should be brought to bear in determining the individual’s true status in law, see Practice Note: Deciding appropriate employment status. For further information relating to whether or not an individual is in law an employee are found in the Practice Note: Employee status. If, on applying the relevant test, the individual is in fact an employee in law, then they would be under a duty of fidelity to the employer, which is also known as the duty of good faith, or of loyalty. Fidelity is a broad concept containing a number of more specific duties, some of which overlap both with each other and with the

Adverse possession (often colloquially referred to as ‘squatters’ rights) was until 2003 a common law doctrine that enabled a person who had been in factual possession of land (whether registered or unregistered) owned by another for a specified period of time (12 years), with an intention to possess (often deduced from the acts making up factual possession), without the consent of the owner, to be registered as the owner: see, generally, J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham. In such circumstances, the owner was barred from obtaining possession of the land, and ownership passed to the trespasser. Frequently, a defence of adverse possession would