Chapter 3 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (HRA 2008) provides for the establishment of a register of providers of social housing (HRA 2008, s 110), maintained by the regulator. By HRA 2008, s 116, the regulator shall register anyone who is eligible for registration and applies to be registered. Once entered in the register under HRA 2008, s 116, a body remains registered unless and until removed under HRA 2008, ss 118 or 119. HRA 2008, s 118 allows the regulator to remove from the register a private registered provider which the regulator thinks is no longer eligible for registration, has ceased to carry out activities, or has ceased to exist. Under HRA 2008, s 119 a private

Once a notice of termination has been given, and provided it is valid, it cannot subsequently be withdrawn unilaterally. This was considered by the courts in Harris and Russell Ltd v Slingsby, in the context of a complaint of unfair

If one is challenging a codicil, for lack of testamentary capacity or undue influence, entering a caveat against the estate is an appropriate step. A caveat prevents the

Much will depend on the form of the option, and whether or not the right to exercise the option is personal to the grantee(s) or

An action for possession by a mortgagee is an action for the recovery of land. The county court has unlimited jurisdiction to hear actions of this nature. This jurisdiction is exclusive so far as land outside Greater London that includes a dwelling-house is concerned. Actions relating to commercial premises or to land within Greater London including a dwelling-house may also be brought in the High Court. The mortgagor should be joined as a defendant but the only other persons who need be joined to the action are those having an independent right to remain in occupation. In practice, however, it is advisable to join all those

We make no comment on the validity of the request to appoint a new trustee in this Q&A and this Q&A is concerned solely with how the appointment of the new trustee is effected and what will be shown on the Land Registry entries. Background to co-ownership and overreaching Where property is purchased in the joint names of two or more co-owners, a statutory ‘trust of land’ arises and all trustees must join in any disposition (which will include a mortgage) of the legal estate. The doctrine of overreaching enables purchasers (and in this case mortgagees) in good faith for money (or monies worth) to rely solely on the legal title. However, to overreach any beneficial interests behind the trust buyer/mortgagee must pay the purchase money to

If only one of two defendants has made a Part 36 offer and the claimant wishes to accept it, CPR 36.15 applies. If the defendants have been sued jointly or in the alternative, then in order to accept the offer, the claimant must discontinue against the other defendant and obtain their consent to accept the offer. If the defendants have several liability, the claimant can simply accept the offer and continue with it’s claim against the other defendant as normal. If the offer is accepted within the relevant period then CPR 36.13(1) would generally apply so that ‘the claimant will be entitled to the costs of the proceedings (including their recoverable pre-action costs) up to the date on which notice of acceptance was served on the offeror’. Where there is several liability and only the claim against the defendant who made the offer is settled, then the position

Contaminated land Contaminated land must pose 'unacceptable risks' to human health or the environment. As a minimum, land should not be capable of being determined as contaminated land under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA 1990)—see Practice Note: Contaminated land—definition of contaminated land. Liability Liability for contaminated land under Part IIA of the EPA 1990 attaches in the first instance to causers and knowing permitters of contamination (Class A persons), and where no Class A person can be found to owners and occupiers (Class B persons). For Class A persons, the concept of 'knowingly permitting' requires (House of Lords, Hansard, 11 July 1995, col 1497): • knowledge that the substances in question were in,

For information: • on without prejudice communications generally, see Practice Note: Without prejudice communications • on without prejudice communications in employment, see Practice Note: Without prejudice and pre-termination negotiations in employment Communications between parties which are without prejudice are (generally) inadmissible as evidence in court and cannot be made the subject of a disclosure order in any proceedings. This rule of evidence applies in employment tribunals just as it does in the

The court is not specifically referred to the question of inherited assets or the parties’ inheritance prospects by section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 or Part 5 of Schedule 5 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004. However, the court will consider any inherited assets when making a final order under the headings of the parties’ financial resources, their contributions to the welfare of the family, and ‘all the circumstances of the case’. See Practice Note: Inherited assets. In financial remedy proceedings the parties owe to each other (and to the court) a duty of full, frank, clear and accurate disclosure. As was said in NG v SG (Appeal: Non-Disclosure): '1. The law of financial remedies following divorce has many commandments but the greatest of these is the absolute

Section 2 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) provides that a person lacks capacity in relation to a matter if, at the material time, they are unable to make a decision for themselves in relation to a matter because of an impairment of a disturbance of the functioning of the mind or brain, whether permanent or temporary. Capacity can therefore be lifelong or transitory. MCA 2005, s 1 provides for a presumption of capacity unless, and until, the contrary is shown. The Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, Pt 15 apply to protected parties, which includes persons who lack capacity. By FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, 15.2 a protected party must have a litigation friend to conduct proceedings

Where a property is jointly owned, then, unless prevented by law, each owner has a right of occupation of the property. It is therefore not lawful for one spouse to change the locks to the jointly-owned matrimonial home unilaterally. A party who has been locked out can simply contact a locksmith to unlock the door and change the locks again or could enter using reasonable force. However, in such circumstances, it is unwise to use self-help methods and will be better to have recourse to negotiation and if necessary, the legal process. If locks have been changed, it is sometimes possible to enlist the police to require entry, although in the domestic context, the police are often reluctant to assist. Some forces will provide support