This Q&A considers priority as between the two interim charging orders only. A charge that is imposed by a charging order has the same effect, and is enforceable in the same manner, as an equitable charge created in writing. A charging order that charges the legal estate is capable of protection by the entry of a notice. A charging order charging a beneficial interest cannot be protected by a notice but can be protected by a restriction. Both an interim and a final charging order can be protected—see Practice Note: Charging orders over land—registration issues. The entry of a notice in the register does not guarantee the validity of an interest or even its existence. If the interest is not valid, the entry of a notice on the register has no

Unless determined to be ‘ancillary’ or otherwise vetted by the European Commission as part of its merger review (and specifically covered as part of the merger clearance decision), any subsequent cooperation by the parent companies (potentially involving coordination

Under section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 (ERA 1999), a worker has the right to be accompanied at a grievance hearing if: • they are invited to attend a grievance hearing, and • they reasonably request to be accompanied at the hearing For these purposes a grievance hearing is a hearing that concerns the performance of a duty by an employer in relation to a worker (ERA 1999, s 13(5)). For more information, see the section: ‘Hearings at which

For the purposes of this Q&A, it has been assumed that, when the property was in two separate parcels, there was an easement for the benefit of Part A over Part B (or vice versa). In this scenario the two parcels of land have since come into common ownership, and are shortly to be sold to another party

We have assumed that: • the legal title to the freehold is held jointly by the co-owners for themselves as tenants in common in equity • title to the freehold is registered Practice Note: Death of a proprietor of land—sale of property by a sole surviving co-owner sets out the rules as to how the legal and equitable ownership to property may be held jointly. See also Practice Note: Residential property—transfers of equity and dealings with equitable interests in residential conveyancing. Where parties co-own property, although the beneficial interest in the land may be held as tenants in common, the legal estate is held as joint tenants. As a result, on the death of one of the joint registered proprietors of registered

This Q&A covers exclusively English law. We assume for the purposes of this Q&A that there is a single business-to-business contract that relates to the servicing of a single (now lost) asset. In conducting our research we have focussed on the doctrine of frustration. We have assumed there are no other provisions in the contract which address this scenario (and there is no force majeure or hardship clause). When is a contract frustrated? A contract will be discharged by frustration where, after the formation of the contract, an event occurs which renders further performance of the contract impossible, illegal or something radically different from what was contemplated by the parties when they made the contract. The doctrine of frustration will come into play where there is a radical difference between the original contractual obligation and the performance that is possible as a result of the

We refer you to Practice Note: IHT—valuation principles and particular types of property (see section ‘Valuing joint property’). This Practice Note explains that, where assets are jointly held, it is usual (except where related property rules apply), to divide the total value of the asset between the respective joint owners on the same basis as their ownership. However,

In co-ownership, a trust of land occurs, and the legal estate is held by the persons that purchased the property as trustees for themselves. While the legal interest in the property can only be held under joint tenancy, the beneficial interest in that property can be held either as joint tenancy or as tenants in common. As tenants in common, both parties have a beneficial interest in the property. Unless stated otherwise, the shares held by tenants in common will be presumed to be equal.

Joint and several liability in a tenancy agreement means that the landlord can seek to recover any monies due under the terms of the tenancy, regardless of how they are caused, from all or any of the tenants. Where a landlord pursues one tenant, they are entitled to a pro rata indemnity from each of the other tenants. Where a tenant leaves

Any material amendment to loan terms could mean it becomes a new loan for FATCA purposes. For this to be the case, the modification has to be material. For debt instruments, the US FATCA rules specifically incorporate existing US Treasury regulations on the meaning of material modification. Under those rules, there must first be a ‘modification’ which is broadly defined and would likely include most alterations

In personal injury claims it is crucial to establish at an early stage whether the potential defendant had in place at the time of the accident or occurrence, an indemnity against damages and costs which might be awarded against them. Such an indemnity (or security) will usually have been provided under a policy of insurance. In the majority of claims a motor insurer will provide a full indemnity to their insured under a valid policy of insurance. This means that the insurer will accept a contractual liability to pay all damages that fall on the defendant. See Practice Note: Indemnity in personal injury claims. There are a variety of circumstances in which, though the existence of motor cover for a vehicle has been established, the insurers providing it can refuse to provide an indemnity

Failing to comply with civil procedural rules, practice directions and/or court orders can increase the amount of time it takes for a dispute to be resolved and/or the costs of doing so. These delays and costs affect other court users, as well as the parties to the instant proceedings. In keeping with the April 2013 Jackson Reforms’ intention to keep the time and cost of litigating to a minimum, the courts seem to be taking a more robust and pro-active approach to case management,