Joint tenancy with right of survivorship is a type of ownership which can apply to both real and personal property and involves two or more people each holding an undivided interest in the whole of the property. Meaning of real property For the purpose of the statutory provisions which relate to the devolution of

Individual voluntary arrangements (IVAs) were introduced by the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) to provide an alternative insolvency procedure for people experiencing severe financial problems and who were insolvent. Until IA 1986, people who were insolvent only had the option of bankruptcy. There was no insolvency procedure for people experiencing severe financial problems and who could make a bankruptcy application but for whom the finality of bankruptcy was not necessary in order to achieve the best outcome for creditors. Companies had a wider range of insolvency procedures with compulsory and creditors’ voluntary liquidations as well as administrative receiverships. IA 1986 introduced administrations for companies and the corporate insolvency options accordingly included the final winding up procedure of liquidation, similar to bankruptcy in its impact, and administrative receiverships and administrations that gave an option for saving aspects of the company’s trade for the

When responding to this query, we have assumed that the contract is of a type that falls within the scope of the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (CCR 2013), SI 2013/3134 to which the cancellation rights apply (ie it is not excluded by CCR 2013, SI 2013/3134, regs 6, 27 or 28) The rights set out in CCR 2013, SI 2013/3134 apply to business-to-consumer contracts governed by UK law. Whether the parties intend for UK law to be the governing law of the contract is usually set out in a ‘choice of law’ or ‘governing law’ clause in the contract. Consumers outside of the UK and not in the EU Outside of the UK and the EU, in the event of a dispute, the rules that will be applied by the courts to determine the governing law will vary from country to

This question raises the application of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1730 (LTA 1730) to modern tenancies. Although often overlooked by parties to a lease as well as practitioners, LTA 1730, s 1 remains in force even though it was enacted almost 300 years ago. It applies where the landlord has demanded possession. To that extent, it is the corollary of the Distress for Rent Act 1737 which requires payment of double rent where the tenant gives notice to quit and fails to leave once it has expired. The situation is not helped by the fact that LTA 1730, s 1 uses the language of its time. It is a style which is very different to that which is now employed by the Parliamentary Counsel and others who draft legislation. Even after the repeal of part of the

CPR 3.13(1) requires all parties, save for litigants in person, to file and exchange budgets in the form specified in the rule. The default provision for failure to comply with the costs budgeting requirement is set out in CPR 3.14 which provides as follows: ‘Unless the court otherwise orders, any party which fails to file a budget despite being required to do so will be treated as having filed a budget comprising only the applicable court fees’. The anomaly is that, while CPR 3.13(1) imposes a requirement both to file and exchange (ie serve) costs budgets, the default provision in CPR 3.14, of recovering only the court fees, appears to be triggered only by a failure to file the budget. The provision is silent as to the consequences of failing to exchange/serve a budget that has been filed in accordance with the CPR. We have been

There are several conditions that must be met in order for the sale of a business to constitute a transfer of a going concern (TOGC), and therefore outside the scope of VAT. See Practice Note: VAT—what is a transfer of a business as a going concern? One of the conditions is that if the seller is a taxable person, the buyer must also be (or, as a result of the transfer, become) a taxable person. A taxable person is a person who is, or is required

We are not aware of any authorities in respect of the effect of service of a second notice specifically in respect of section 21 notices. However, assuming that: • both notices were valid • the second notice was served expressly without prejudice to the validity of the first, and • the effect of the second notice still makes it clear to a reasonable recipient (see Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Life Assurance Co Ltd) that the person

By way of background, pursuant to section 94(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA 1974), a debtor under a regulated credit agreement is entitled at any time to repay the credit in full ahead of time. The calculation of the settlement figure is ascertained by reference to the statutory formula provided for by the Consumer Credit (Early Settlement) Regulations 2004 (CC(ES)R 2004), SI 2004/1483, reg 4. In particular, the formula incorporates a statutory ‘rebate’ as provided for by CCA 1974, s 95(1). The purpose of the rebate is to reduce the total amount payable, as provided for by the terms of the agreement, in order to reflect the fact that the credit has been repaid early. At least in general terms, the earlier the credit is repaid, the greater the amount of the rebate. Thus,

Since the recent inclusion of Standard Occupational Classification code (SOC code) 6145 (for care workers and home carers) under the Skilled Worker route, via Statement of changes in Immigration Rules: HC 1019, an express prohibition applies to applicants being sponsored under this SOC code by private households and individuals. Under the current drafting of the Shortage Occupations List and sponsor guidance, however, no such prohibition appears to apply to Senior care workers for all job roles under SOC code 6146. Technically speaking, therefore,

Family analysis: It has been a longstanding practice in public law children cases that when experts’ fees exceed the rates set out in the Legal Aid Agency’s (LAA) guidelines, and prior authority is not granted by the LAA to cover the higher charging rate or number of hours, then the local authority either agrees or can be directed by the court to cover the shortfall. The LAA has now amended its guidance to clarify that this should not routinely be the case, unless exceptional circumstances warrant it, and provided guidance to practitioners when making applications for prior authority for experts’ fees. This has now been explored by the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, and ‘general principles’ to follow when it comes to the instruction of experts in public law children cases, including template orders which are included in the judgment. Gemma Adams, associate solicitor at Dawson Cornwell LLP, looks at the implications.

The issue of whether an individual is an employee of another may comprise two questions: • whether an individual A has a contract to work for party B, ie whether B is A’s employer (eg where B disputes that that relationship exists at all) • assuming that such a relationship with B does exist, whether A’s status in that relationship under statutory employment law is that of an ‘employee’ or a ‘worker’, and/or whether A is in ‘employment’ within the meaning given to that term in the Equality Act 2010 The latter question, concerning status, will determine what statutory employment rights apply to A (for further information, see Practice Notes: Deciding appropriate employment status, Employee status, Worker status and Employment events which give rise to discrimination, harassment and victimisation claims—The meaning of 'employment'). Claims brought to enforce such statutory employment rights are, however, brought (almost) exclusively in the employment tribunal, not the County Court, and hence the question of what statutory employment

The Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) provides for a moratorium or stay on creditor action which arises automatically on certain trigger events. IA 1986, s 130(2) provides: ‘when a winding-up order has been made or a provisional liquidator has been appointed, no action or proceeding shall be proceeded with or commenced against the company or its property, except by leave of the court and subject to such terms as the court may impose.’ The scope of the winding-up stay under IA 1986, s 130(2) is less comprehensive than the moratorium that applies under IA 1986, Sch B1, para 43 in the context of administration—see Practice Note: The moratorium in administration—and is limited to ‘actions’ or ‘proceedings’. The automatic stay will also only apply to proceedings brought against the company in liquidation, rather than proceedings commenced by the company in liquidation. (added emphasis) The courts have