Where two or more people together own real property, they hold it under a trust of land. Where property is held on a trust of land, the legal estate and equitable estate are separate. The legal estate must be held by the co-owners as joint tenants. The beneficial interest in the property can, however, be held by the co-owners either as: • joint tenants, or • tenants in common If the co-owners are joint tenants, each has an indivisible share in the property, where each owns the whole, rather than an identifiable share of the property. The right of survivorship applies so on the death of one joint tenant, the deceased’s interest in the property passes automatically to the other(s).

Where there is a periodic assured (including assured shorthold) tenancy, the landlord is entitled to seek an increase in rent by virtue of section 13 of the Housing Act 1988 (HA 1988). The right applies whether the periodic tenancy arose by statute (at the end of a fixed term) or by contract (unless the contractual periodic tenancy contains a rent review provision: HA 1988, s 13(1)(b)). To exercise the right, the landlord must serve notice in the prescribed form set out in Form 4 in the Schedule to the Assured Tenancies and Agricultural Occupancies (Forms) (England) Regulations 2015, SI 2015/620, or in a form ‘substantially to the same effect’. The issue raised by this question is whether an error in completion of the prescribed

This question raises the issue of the requirements for a valid notice to quit. Such notices are largely governed by the common law rules which have grown up over the years. There may be some contexts in which they cannot be served (for example, where a residential tenancy has the protection of the Housing Act 1985 (HA 1985) or the Housing Act 1988 (HA 1988)) or where they must take a particular form (for example, where a business tenancy has the protection of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954), the service of a notice under LTA 1954, s 25 being akin to such a notice despite there being important differences). Statute has also intervened in the case of notices served in respect of residential premises, where a certain period of notice has to be given, irrespective of the common law rules (under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977) and certain information

Severance of joint tenancies Commentary from: General rule: Halsbury's Laws of England [205] provides that a joint tenancy may be severed either by one joint tenant as to his own share or generally by all the joint tenants. Section 36(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA 1925) provision clarifies how a joint tenancy may be severed, stating: ‘Where a legal estate (not being settled land) is vested in joint tenants beneficially, any tenant may sever the joint tenancy in equity by notice in writing to the other joint tenants or by doing such other acts and things as would in the case of personal estate be effectual to sever the tenancy in equity.’ A notice in writing of a desire to sever under

For an assignment to take effect as a statutory assignment, it must comply with section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925. One of the requirements is that the assignment is 'absolute'. Case law has clarified that an assignment of part of a debt cannot take effect as a statutory assignment—see Re Steel Wing Company . The rationale for this is explained in Calnan's Taking Security. ‘The distinction between an assignment which is absolute and one which is not depends

An assured shorthold tenancy (AST) granted by the landlord to the tenant at the expiry of another AST of the same premises and between the same parties is a replacement tenancy. This means that the period of four months before which a section 21 notice can be served begins on the day on which the original tenancy began, and the first date on which a possession

In Land Registry terms, a transfer of part of land in two titles from the landowner to himself in order to create a third title, does not constitute a transfer as there is no change of title, but rather the registered

The operation of restrictive covenants is always subject to the proper construction of the clause, in the context of the entire document in which it appears, and in the light of the background knowledge of the parties at the time it was entered into. Subject to this caveat, the following authorities may be of assistance: • Elliott v Safeway Stores—a

Section 19 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 states, inter alia: ‘Transfers of value made by a transferor in any one year are exempt to the extent that the values transferred by them (calculated as values on which no tax is chargeable) do not exceed £3,000.’ That is the maximum that is permissible under this section as an ‘annual exemption’. The year begins on 6 April and ends on 5 April the following

The residence nil rate band (RNRB) of the surviving spouse who has an immediate post death interest (IPDI) in a qualifying residential interest (see section 8H of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (IHTA 1984)), will be enhanced by the transferable residence nil rate band (TRNRB) of the first spouse to die, if claimed. On the death of the surviving spouse the value of the IPDI will qualify for the RNRB if that interest is inherited (see IHTA 1984, s 8J) and closely

A non-molestation order is made under section 42 of the Family Law Act 1996 (FLA 1996). Such an order prohibits the respondent from molesting another person with whom they are associated or any relevant child. The criteria for the making of such an order are all of the circumstances, including the need to secure the health, safety and well-being of the applicant and of any relevant child (FLA 1996, s 42(5)). FLA 1996, s 42A makes it an offence to do anything without reasonable excuse that the respondent is prohibited from doing by the non-molestation order. FLA 1996, s 42(2) makes clear that a non-molestation order can be made against only specified categories of persons; the application must be made by a person who is associated with the respondent, or within family proceedings to

Sections 64–66 of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010) imposes an equality clause into a person's (A's) terms of work, or an equality rule into an occupational pension scheme, where A: • is employed on work that is equal to the work that a comparator of the opposite sex (B) does, or • holds a personal or public office and does work that is equal to the work that a comparator of the opposite sex (B) does For the purposes of the equality of terms provisions under EqA 2010,