This Q&A concerns the enforcement and conduct of a search order against a respondent in respect of material contained on their computer equipment, and in particular asks what steps can be taken in three scenarios where: • the premises at which the search is to be conducted are closed due to the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak, • the respondent refuses entry on the basis that they are self-isolating, or • those due to conduct the search have concerns about executing the search order because of the fear of becoming infected The court has the power to authorise one party to enter the premises owned by another party (or prospective party) in civil proceedings, and to inspect or detain and preserve evidence relevant to, or property being kept there which is or may be

Dispute Resolution analysis: The court held that a failure to comply with the requirements of CPR 3.6 carries with it an implied sanction and accordingly a defaulting party will require relief from sanctions in order to proceed with its application. This case is an important reminder of the need for applications under CPR 3.6 to be made within the prescribed time limit and to be supported by evidence. The 14-day time limit provided by CPR 3.6 is deliberately short as parties are entitled to finality in proceedings. Accordingly, a failure to make a valid application within the time limit is likely to constitute a serious and significant breach. The case also considered whether the current global pandemic coronavirus (COVID-19) constitutes a good reason for a breach of a court order, practice direction or rule. The court held that the pandemic and the fact that one of the parties had been self-isolating was not in itself a good reason for the delay. Written by Nicole Bollard, barrister, at 3PB Barristers.

Rent demand The landlord should check the terms of the lease to see whether the obligation to pay rent is dependent on the provision of a formal rent demand and ensure that this is complied with. The terms of the guarantee and any pre-conditions prior to liability being triggered must also be checked. There are further requirements in respect of long residential leases pursuant to section 166 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. A tenant under a long lease of a dwelling is not liable to make payment of rent under the lease unless the landlord has provided the tenant with a notice in the prescribed form. See Practice Note: Statutory limitations on the landlord’s right to forfeit a long residential lease. Remedies If rent arrears accrue, subject to liability having been triggered under the terms of guarantee, the remedies of court proceedings and serving a statutory demand may

Section 106 agreements (section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990)) enable those with an interest in land to ‘by agreement or otherwise’ enter into an obligation to (TCPA 1990, s 106(1)(a) to (d)): • restrict the development or use of the land • require specified operations to be carried out • requiring the land to be used in any specific way, or • require a sum or sums to be paid to the authority As TCPA 1990, s 106 permits the obligation(s) to be given ‘by agreement or otherwise’, the obligation(s) can be made by a unilateral undertaking. Consideration is given in this answer to both. For either an agreement or a unilateral undertaking to be binding on all interests in the land, all those with an interest in the land must be made parties to the agreement, or they must join in the unilateral undertaking.

The Law Commission on Electronic Execution of Documents (Law Com No. 386) concludes that there is no need for formal primary legislation to reinforce the legal validity of electronic signatures on documents but is more equivocal on the question of video witnessing of electronic signatures. The issue arises in particular where the relevant signatures are made upon the execution of a deed. In respect of deeds, section 1(3) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 (LP(MP)A 1989) provides that an instrument is validly executed as a deed if, and only if, it is signed by an individual in the presence of a witness who attests the signature; or at their direction and in their presence and the presence of two witnesses who each attest the

The Vice-President of the Court of Protection, Mr Justice Hayden, has issued guidance for judges and practitioners offering practical solutions to some of the issues being raised in connection with coronavirus, including this question. See Court of Protection: Guidance COVID-19. In this guidance, Hayden

Commercial analysis: This case concerned the sale of two types of Chinese-manufactured facemasks by a Belgian defendant to a UK-based claimant. The claimant claimed to be entitled to reject the masks on a number of different grounds. This judgment concerns its application for summary judgment, which was partially successful. The judgment is significant because it addresses the question of who should be responsible for ensuring compliance with EU and UK regulatory standards, and highlights the danger of failing to address the issue clearly in a written agreement at the outset. Written by Steven Fennell, barrister at Exchange Chambers.

A break option allowing a tenant to determine its tenancy before the contractual expiry date will often require the tenant to comply with various pre-conditions in addition to the service of a break notice, such as payment of rent and providing vacant possession. Where the landlord and tenant have agreed a rent concession due to the coronavirus

As far as we are aware, there do not appear to be any coronavirus (COVID-19) exemptions relating to regulation 5(5)(v)

Restrictions on forfeiture During the ‘relevant period’ of 26 March 2020 to 25 March 2022 in England and Wales, section 82 of the Coronavirus Act 2020 provides that there is a prohibition on a landlord taking steps to forfeit a ‘relevant business tenancy’ on the grounds of non-payment of rent and other sums falling due under the lease. See Practice Note: Coronavirus (COVID-19)—implications for property [Archived], in particular section: Restrictions on forfeiture of commercial tenancies—CA 2020, s 82. Note that the provisions of the Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill (the Bill) will affect a landlord’s ability to utilise some of the remedies for recovery of certain outstanding rent, service charge, value added tax and interest during

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) provides for enhanced rights for data subjects, including providing rights of rectification, erasure and restriction of processing, data portability, and a right of data subjects, with strict time limits for complying. Legal requirements You must respond to a data subject request without undue delay and in any event within one month of receipt of the request, or within one month of receiving: • any information you have requested to confirm the requester’s identity • any fee you have charged That period may be extended by two further months where necessary, taking into account the complexity and number of the requests. You must inform the data subject of any such extension within one month of receipt of the request, together with the reasons for the delay. See Precedents: Response to data subject request—charging a fee and Response to data subject request—extension of time. The time limit

The Insolvency Service has announced that Buckinghamshire events director has been sentenced for Coronavirus (COVID-19) Bounce Back Loan fraud. William Blenkarn obtained double the amount of Covid support his company was entitled to as a result of a fraudulent declaration. Blenkarn claimed he did not know he was not entitled to a second Bounce Back Loan for MJB Events Limited. The Insolvency Service is seeking to recover the fraudulently obtained funds under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.