This Q&A focuses on claims for possession of land to which CPR 55 applies. This Q&A covers the situation where a Part 8 claim form has been issued and served on the defendant but that the particulars of claim have not been issued/filed at court or served. It is assumed that it is a claim for possession of rented residential premises, as form N119 is the standard form for particulars of claim for such a claim. CPR 55 Part 55 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR 55) relates to claims for the possession of land. CPR 55.4 states: ‘The particulars of claim must be filed and served with the claim form. (Part 16 and Practice Direction 55A provide details about the contents of the particulars of claim)’ Accordingly, if the claimant has not filed and served its particulars of claim with the Part 8 claim form, it has not followed the

In Placefirst Construction v Car Construction, the TCC determined a complex payment dispute, the outcome of which turned on whether the contractor had issued a valid pay less notice (PLN). The court decided that the contractor had issued a valid PLN. That decision entailed a finding that the sub-contractor had issued a valid payment notice (PN), to which the contractor’s PLN responded. Among other points, the court considered that the sub-contractor’s interim payment application (IPA) met the requirements for a PN under section 110A(3) of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (HGCRA 1996). To recap, HGCRA 1996, s 110A(3) provides that: ‘(1) A construction contract shall, in relation to every payment provided for by the contract— (a) require the payer or a specified person to give a notice complying with subsection (2) to the payee not later than five days after the payment due date, or (b) require the payee

HM Revenue and Customs' (HMRC) guidance in SDLTM09740 states: 'The following transactions will not comprise higher rates transactions and the higher rates will not apply. Purchases of: • non-residential or mixed residential and non-residential properties, except for a transaction which incorporates more than one dwelling, when ◦ a “Multiple Dwellings Relief” claim is made in respect of the residential element of the transaction, and ◦ the non-residential element of the transaction is negligible or artificially contrived' This statement is slightly confusing because: • higher rates apply for the purposes of multiple dwellings relief (MDR) to an acquisition comprising dwellings and non-residential property. MDR (plus higher rates) applies to the consideration attributable to the dwellings. Non-residential

Paragraph 25B of Schedule 12 to the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016 (RH(W)A 2016) makes provision for termination of certain converted fixed term standard contracts (including former assured shorthold tenancies). The paragraph only applies to those contracts that are not within RH(W)A 2016, Sch 9B (those that can be terminated by notice under RH(W)A 2016, s 186). RH(W)A 2016, Sch 12, para 25B provides that the landlord may give not less than two months’ notice to give up possession, subject to other requirements about the expiry

Compatibility of break clauses with ASTs Section 19A of the Housing Act 1988 (HA 1988) provides that any assured tenancy arising after commencement of section 96 of the Housing Act 1996 (HA 1996) (which was 23 August 1996) is an assured shorthold tenancy (AST) unless it falls within a paragraph of HA 1988, Sch 2A. HA 1988, Sch 2A does not contain any minimum period for an AST. Nor is a tenancy required to have a minimum length to qualify as an assured tenancy under HA 1988, s 1. There is therefore no doubt that a standard residential tenancy granted today on terms that the tenant is to have a right to break the tenancy within the first six months will be an AST. You may have had in mind the pre-1996 regime of opt-in

This Q&A covers the situation where: • the goods in question are not protected by a patent or otherwise protected by registered intellectual property rights (IPRs) • the goods may be simply physical parts or machines which also incorporate software, and • the seller wishes to prevent the buyer selling goods created using the knowledge acquired by reverse engineering Competition issues On the face of it there may be a competition law angle to consider in this situation. This is on the basis that, but for the clause in question, the purchaser could (and may have the requisite incentive to) enter or expand in a market in competition with the party supplying the product (Party A)—whether this is in: • an

Civil and criminal consequences Any overpaid money legally belongs to the payer. If the supplier is aware of the overpayment and deliberately fails to inform the customer there are potential criminal and civil consequences. The retention of the monies could amount to theft within the meaning of sections 1–6 of the Theft Act 1968 (TA 1968) (the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it). See Practice Note: Theft. Under TA 1968, s 3 ‘appropriation’ for these purposes includes coming by property (which includes money under TA 1968, s 4), whether innocently or not without stealing it and later keeping it. Dishonesty would have to be proved within the meaning of the test set out in R v Ghosh. The test is twofold (i) is the supplier dishonest by the standards of ordinary and decent people (an objective standard)

Pursuant to CPR 7.5 the claimant in business lease renewal (or termination) proceedings must serve the proceedings within four months of the date of issue. This timescale applies to unopposed proceedings under CPR Part 8 and opposed proceedings under CPR Part 7. Where a claimant has failed to correctly serve the proceedings within this timescale or to serve at the correct address

The answer to this question will depend on the terms of the lease and other surrounding circumstances. The relevant matters are likely to include whether the landlord knew in advance of the tenant's requirement for an internet connection, what they promised or represented to the tenant about that before the lease was granted, and the reason for the poor service. Generally,

A lease may grant the tenant an option to purchase the landlord's interest in the demised premises. Such an option is collateral to the lease, but is independent of, and therefore not incident to, the relationship of landlord and tenant: see Woodall v Clifton and

A business tenancy will ordinarily be protected by the provisions of Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954) unless the parties have agreed to exclude its operation. This means that a tenancy will not expire by effluxion of time but will continue on a statutory basis until the landlord serves notice determining the tenancy or the tenant requests a new tenancy and in either case the court makes a determination. The tenant is entitled to a new tenancy unless the landlord can show one of the grounds of opposition set out in LTA 1954, s 30. For more information, see Practice Note: LTA 1954 business lease renewal—termination. By LTA 1954, s 27, a tenant can

Where a tenant claims an individual new lease under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (LRHUDA 1993), and the notice under LRHUDA 1993, s 42 is deemed withdrawn by LRHUDA 1993, s 53, there are several consequences. These are: • the tenant may not serve a new LRHUDA 1993, s 42 notice within 12 months of the