A lease comprises a contract between the landlord and the tenant, and it is, broadly speaking, open to the parties to agree to such terms as they wish. A commercial tenant is ordinarily not protected by consumer law provisions as the contract will be entered into as part of a trade, craft or profession or by an incorporated entity and, as a result, does not qualify as a consumer. However, the freedom of the parties to contract is not unbounded and a clause that is out of the ordinary and which is

The key issues are likely to include: • Recruitment and right to work—whether there are any specific rules in the relevant country governing the employee’s recruitment and (if relevant) immigration status • Applicable (or governing) law—the parties are free to specify, in the express terms of the employment contract, that a particular body of law governs the operation of that contract, eg by stating 'the proper law of this contract is the law of England and Wales'. Where the parties make that express choice, Rome I states that the law they choose

In relation to withdrawing consent, one would need to consider first whether the employee’s original consent to the proposed reduction in salary was effective in changing their terms and conditions of employment. Normally, express consent to a proposed variation is effective in changing the terms of the contract, provided that: • the consent is given freely and free from duress • it is supported by consideration For further information, see Practice Note: Changing terms and conditions of employment in ‘Changes not permitted by the contract: obtaining consent’. In some cases, an employee’s implied consent to the change will be effective in changing the terms of the contract (see Practice Note: Changing

STOP PRESS: From 1 October 2026, section 48 of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 (inserting sections 14A and 15A of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006) extends right to work civil penalty liability in certain contractual arrangements, including where a supplier which, having contracted to provide services to a customer, engages a subcontractor to perform all or part of those services. Although the subcontractor remains responsible for carrying out prescribed right to work checks on individuals it employs or engages to perform the subcontracted services, the supplier may be treated as 'employing' any individual who personally performs the services and so may also be held liable for illegal working unless it satisfies the prescribed requirements for establishing a statutory excuse. The extended liability requirements apply to relevant contractual arrangements entered into on or after 1 October 2026. See News Analysis: Extended scope of the right to work regime: how will it work in practice? and LNB News 14/09/2026 18 for further information. This Practice Note will be updated shortly

It is common for a contract that relates to land, such as an option agreement, to provide that the terms of the transfer in the event that a transfer is to take place under the terms of the contract, shall be in the form annexed to the contract. The purpose of such provision is to provide certainty and to ensure that there is no scope for disagreement as to the terms of the transfer. However, in this scenario it appears that the form of transfer was not in fact annexed to the option agreement and was not ever prepared. The legal position in such a scenario will depend upon the precise circumstances relating to the contract. It may be the case that there are agreed terms for the form of

From an employment law perspective, suspension may arise in two contexts: • some disciplinary procedures provide for suspension, without pay, as a disciplinary penalty • much more commonly, procedures may provide for the suspension of the employee on full pay for the purpose of investigating allegations of misconduct, or while such allegations are investigated Before using suspension as a disciplinary penalty, the employer should check the employment contract or relevant disciplinary procedure to ensure that it provides for this; if an employer takes disciplinary action, whether or not under a contractual procedure, only the penalties provided for by the contract may be imposed, consistently with the contract, and then only to the extent that the penalties are provided for under the contract

Notice to complete To: [insert recipient's name and address] (the [Seller OR Buyer]); From: [insert name and address of party serving the notice] (the [Buyer OR Seller]); Property: [insert property details]. We: 1 refer

This Practice Note considers the doctrine of separability under the law of England and Wales (England and English are used as shorthand throughout). This Practice Note should be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Separability of arbitration agreements in international arbitration, which considers the doctrine from an international perspective. The doctrine of separability under English law An arbitration agreement is to be treated as separate from the main agreement in which it is contained and, as such, survives the termination or invalidity of the main agreement—this is known as the ‘doctrine of separability’. The doctrine of separability is enshrined in English law pursuant to section 7 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996): 'Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, an arbitration agreement which forms or was intended to form part of another agreement (whether or not in writing) shall not be regarded as invalid, non-existent or ineffective because that other agreement is invalid, or did not come into existence or has become ineffective, and it shall for that purpose be treated as a distinct agreement.' The

In short, there is no formula or rule for determining the amount that a contractor can claim from the employer if it suspends the works. Any amount payable by the employer will depend on the particular circumstances. Where the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (HGCRA 1996) applies to the contract, section 112 provides that where a sum is due under a construction contract and it has not been paid: • the party to whom the sum is due has the right (without prejudice to any other right or remedy) to suspend performance of any or all of its obligations under the contract to the party by whom payment ought to have been made • the right cannot be exercised without first giving at least seven days' notice of the intention to suspend performance, stating the ground or grounds on which it is intended to suspend performance (the contractor must take care here as suspension may amount to repudiation of the contract if the

Any purported variation of a contract of employment that is, or will be, transferred under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE 2006), SI 2006/246, reg 4(1) is void 'if the sole or principal reason for the variation is the transfer'. However, a variation of the contract of employment of a transferring employee will not be prevented, ie the variation will not be void: • if the terms of that contract of employment permit the employer to make such a variation, or • if the sole or principal reason for the variation is an economic, technical or organisational reason (ETO reason) entailing changes in the workforce and the employer and the employee agree that variation See Practice Note: TUPE—variation of contract terms. If, at

For the purposes of this Q&A, it is assumed that the relevant contract is a business-to-business contract for the supply of goods and/or services subject to English law. This Q&A does not address the content or operation of insolvency law in foreign jurisdictions. Moreover, the issues raised in this Q&A are wide-ranging and only an overall snapshot is provided. Given the recent enactment of section 233B of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), no authorities ruling on the question definitively yet exist. The starting point is IA 1986, s 233B(1)–(2), which provides that the section applies to a contract for the supply of goods or services to a company (the customer) which is subject to a ‘relevant insolvency procedure’. It should be noted that that section is not expressed to operate differently depending on the governing law of the contract. Where the insolvent customer

Unless an exclusion applies, the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR 2015), SI 2015/102, Pt 2 applies in its entirety when a contracting authority (as defined in PCR 2015, SI 2015/102, reg 2) seeks offers for: • a proposed public supply contract • a proposed public works contract • a proposed public services contract • a proposed framework agreement or dynamic purchasing system, where the subject matter involves any of the above where the estimated value of that contract or framework agreement (net of the value added tax) exceeds the relevant financial threshold in place at the time. For further guidance, see Practice Note: Considerations when authorities procure contracts that are not subject to the full procurement regime—pre-PA 2023 [Archived]. Light touch regime A