Employee status: statutory maternity leave and pay It may be that a woman: • is not entitled to statutory maternity leave, because she is not an employee within the meaning of sections 71, 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996), but • is entitled to statutory maternity pay (SMP) because she is an employee within the meaning of sections 2(1), 164, 171 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (SSCBA 1992), ie an ‘employed earner’, as modified by the SMP (General) Regulations 1986, SI 1986/1960 For more information, see: • the section of Practice Note: Maternity leave entitled ‘Entitlement to maternity leave’ • the sections of Practice Note: Maternity pay entitled ‘SMP—entitlement’ and ‘SMP—definition of employee’ Irregular hours and part-year workers: right of accrual during

We refer you to the following: • TRSM70010—Discrepancy reporting: contents: Introduction Also

The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE 2006), SI 2006/246, reg 4, where there is a relevant transfer, there is a statutory novation of the employment contracts of the transferring employees: the transferee effectively steps into the shoes of the transferor, and the contract of employment has effect after the transfer as if originally made between the employee and the transferee. For

Security of tenure under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954) applies to most business tenancies, unless they are ‘contracted out’ of the protections. LTA 1954, s 38A provides that the landlord and the tenant may agree to exclude security of tenure. For an agreement to be effective, the parties must follow the contracting out procedure set out in LTA 1954, s 38A(3) and Regulatory Reform (Business Tenancies) (England & Wales) Order 2003 (RRO 2003), SI 2003/3096, Sch 2. Contracting out is achieved by: • the landlord serving a warning notice on the tenant which advises the tenant that they are giving up their statutory right to security of tenure and compensation and recommends that the tenant obtains professional advice before giving up these rights • the tenant signing a simple declaration or (depending on the timescales involved—see

This Q&A considers the situation where, at some point in time, the land was noted as being transferred free of the rentcharge and therefore no longer is shown on the current register of title, rather than being formally extinguished. The three main ways in which a rentcharge can come to an end are: • by express release by the owner of the rentcharge to the owner of the land charged • by merger when the owner of the rentcharge and the owner of the land charged become the same person, or • by redemption under the Rentcharges Act 1977 Also note that except for rentcharges which are exempted, Rentcharges Act 1977, s 3, provides that every rentcharge will be extinguished at the expiry of the period of 60 years from 22 August 1977 or from the date when it first becomes payable,

Regulation 12(6) of the Building Regulations 2010 (the 2010 Regulations), SI 2010/2214 (SI 2010/2214, reg 12(6)) states that 'a person intending to carry out building work is not required to give a building notice or deposit full plans where the work consists only of work— • described in column 1 of the Table in the 2010 Regulations, SI 2010/2214, Sch 3 if the work is to be carried out by a person described in the corresponding entry in column 2 of that Table, or • described in the 2010 Regulations, SI 2010/2214, Sch 4’ The Table

The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (RRO 2005), SI 2005/1541, applies to non-domestic property including the non-domestic common parts of multi-occupied residential buildings and imposes fire safety duties on 'responsible persons'. These duties include carrying out a fire risk assessment. The

It is relatively common, particularly in the case of flats, terraced houses or flying freeholds, for rights to be granted and reserved by reference to the enjoyment of support from existing buildings (so as to distinguish from the right of natural support which at common law is enjoyed from land alone). It

Private nuisance involves an interference with the legal rights of an owner of land (or an interest in it), or interference with the amenity of the land (the right to use and enjoy it). For general information, see Practice Note: Private nuisance—general principles. If the growth of the garden is such that it overhangs into the neighbour’s property, or the garden or property cause damage to buildings, liability is likely to arise. See Practice Notes: Private nuisance—general principles and Damage by tree roots and Q&A: The branches of trees planted on property X overhang property Y. Can the owner of property Y require the

This Q&A raises the distinction between the rights enjoyed under an easement and the rights enjoyed as lessee. The lessee will be the person to whom the party entitled to possession of land or premises has granted an exclusive right of possession. This is important. For as long as the lease continues, the lessee has that right as against any other person including the lessor. A well-drafted lease will give the lessor the right to enter the demised premises for particular purposes (often to inspect their condition on giving notice), recognising the reality that without it, any entry by the landlord is an act of trespass. An easement on the other hand is a permission for the grantee to use the grantor’s land for a particular purpose. Very often, that will a right of way to reach or leave

While the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (LRHUDA 1993) gives qualifying tenants the right to extend their residential lease by a term of 90 years at a peppercorn

As to a specific clause in a lease that all floors in the flat should be covered with underlay and carpets except in the kitchen and bathroom, the key case is Faidi v Elliot Corporation, in which the court recognised the purpose and importance of such a covenant in preserving the amenity of other leaseholders. Ordinarily, such a covenant is binding and enforceable. In Faidi, the leaseholders of the second-floor flat sought to enforce the relevant covenant in the lease of the third-floor flat above them. However, on the particular facts of the case, they were unsuccessful in their claim. This was