This Practice Note explains the various potential implications for a landlord to consider before accepting rental payments from third parties, including arguments that rent paid by a third party has given rise to a surrender by operation of law and re-grant to the third party, or that the landlord is estopped from denying that an assignment has taken place by virtue of the third party rental payment. The issue may arise in particular where: • a company related to the tenant company (such as a parent company or subsidiary) tenders the rent • the tenant is proposing to, or is in the process of, assigning their lease • the tenant company is insolvent (for example in administration) and a third party is interested in occupying the premises Surrender by operation of law One potential risk to take into account is whether or not accepting rent from a third party may give rise to a surrender by operation of law and grant of a new implied lease to the third party which has

The making available of facilities and/or services to another undertaking, under defined conditions, on either an exclusive or non-exclusive basis, for the purpose of providing electronic communications services, including when they are used for the delivery of information society services or broadcast content services.

Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities, as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council.

The protocol which must be adhered to by Project Co in order to gain access to the buildings which form part of the project. For example on a social housing project or a school certain criteria would need to be met by Project Co before it or its Contractor could access dwellings or the school to undertake repairs or refurbishment.

A fee charged subscribers or other network operator by a network operator for the use of their network by the subscriber or other network operator. Where the fee is between network operators, also known as an interconnect or interconnection charge.

1 [The Contractor acknowledges that the Employer, Funders, Purchasers, Tenants, Other Interested Third Parties and/or persons employed or otherwise engaged by them, may require

Services which control the supply to end users of digital services other than digital television services and certain other specific exclusions. Access Control Services are not supplied directly to end users but are supplied to third parties (for instance, retailers or banks) who wish to supply digital services to end users.

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 6 December 2013; it is no longer maintained. Case facts Outline OFT Chapter I investigation into an alleged cartel in the access control and alarm systems to retirement properties sector Parties Cirrus Communication Systems Limited (Cirrus), Peter O'Rourke Electrical Limited, Owens Installations

At common law, there is no right of entry onto another person’s land without an easement or consent of the adjoining owner. In the absence of these, an adjoining owner would need to make an application, pursuant to the Access to Neighbouring Land Act 1992 (ANLA 1992), for an access order. Any unauthorised entry would constitute a trespass, the remedies for which could be an injunction and/or damages. Pursuant

The part of the network that connects directly to customers from the local telephone exchange.

Ownership, leasing or any other permitted use of land normally requires access to it to obtain the benefit of the land. The public is allowed to use roads and footpaths adopted by local authorities and, if the land in question borders an adopted road, access should be straightforward. If access is required over another person’s land, reliance on common law or statute may be possible but purchasers will generally seek some form of contractual agreement or servitude to be put in place where none exist. If land is common or joint property, no separate rights of access are required by any of the owners to access or cross the land. This Practice Note sets out the common access issues which might be encountered in property transactions in Scotland and the issues which a seller’s and buyer’s solicitor might be required to address. The same issues may equally arise in lease transactions as between landlord and tenant’s solicitors but for ease of reference

This Practice Note provides an overview of the provisions for non-discriminatory access to central counterparties (CCPs), trading venues and benchmarks in Regulation (EU) 600/2014 (EU MiFIR), as amended by Regulation (EU) 2024/791 (the MiFIR Review). It includes a summary of the level 1 legislation, as well as relevant level 2 rules and level 3 guidance. Regulatory background EU MiFIR and the recast Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (Directive 2014/65/EU) (EU MiFID II) replaced the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (Directive 2004/39/EC), which already gave investment firms the right of non-discriminatory access to CCP, clearing and settlement systems in other Member States. This right was retained in MiFID II. The MiFIR access provisions were intended to encourage competition and address the ‘vertical silo’ model—where trading, clearing and settlement all take place within the same infrastructure. In order to avoid discrimination, CCPs are required to clear transactions executed on different trading venues, and trading venues must make their data feeds available to different CCPs on a transparent and non-discriminatory basis.