In a members’ voluntary liquidation (MVL), it is presumed that there will be adequate realisations to pay all creditors as the company is solvent. The primary purpose of the MVL is to pay outstanding creditors and make a distribution to members. Claims in the MVL are known as ‘proofs of debt’. The liquidator will determine these proofs and admit or reject them as appropriate. For further information on proving, see Practice Note: Proof of debt. Creditors may challenge the liquidator’s determination of their proof by applying to court under the

Where two or more people hold the beneficial interests in a property as joint tenants, they are each regarded as owning the entirety of them. There is no concept of each individual owning a share of the beneficial interests. When one of them dies, as a result of the principle of survivorship, the remaining tenants continue to hold the entirety of the beneficial interests. The estate of the deceased tenant does not acquire any interest. When there are two joint tenants and one dies, the survivor becomes the sole owner. Where two or more people hold the beneficial interests in property as tenants in common, they each own an individual share in them. They may assign it to third parties or among themselves so that one tenant in common might see an increase in the size of share held. Those who hold land as joint

The Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (CLRA 2002) gives tenants of blocks of flats (but not houses) the collective right to take over the management of their building from the landlord without having to acquire the freehold. This right can be claimed out of court, is irrespective of fault on the part of the landlord, and no compensation is payable. This right to manage can only be exercised through membership of a right to manage (RTM) company. Before making a claim to acquire the right to manage premises, the RTM company must give notice inviting qualifying tenants who are not members to participate (as participation by such tenants is voluntary). See Practice Note: The right to manage blocks of flats—the RTM company and the right to participate. Once 14 days has

For guidance about information and consultation obligations in relation to a TUPE transfer generally, see Practice Note: TUPE—information and consultation. A transferee may wish to implement redundancies after the transfer takes place, particularly if the transferee already has its own employees to carry out some or all of the functions involved in the transferring business or service. If so, and the transferee proposes to make 20 redundancies at one establishment within a period of 90 days or less, two separate statutory information and consultation duties will apply: • the obligation under TUPE 2006 to inform and consult in respect of its affected employees, prior to the transfer, and • the obligation under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation)

The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/246 (TUPE 2006) provide that, 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. A relevant transfer does not terminate the contract of employment of any person employed by the transferor and assigned to the organised grouping that is subject to the transfer. Instead, the contract of employment has effect after the transfer as if originally made between the employee and

One effect of VAT grouping is that supplies made by or to members of a VAT group are deemed to be made by or to the representative member of that group. Persons who have paid too much VAT have a right to be repaid by HMRC, and any VAT return that shows an excess of input tax over output tax gives rise, in principle, to a right to repayment. Where a right to repayment arises to a VAT group (which is treated as a single entity for VAT purposes), then the right to repayment accrues to the representative member of that group. Complications arise when the composition of a VAT group has changed over time. The leading case on this is the joined cases of HMRC v BMW (UK) Holdings Ltd and MG Rover Group Ltd, Lloyds Banking

A legacy in a Will which is subject to the legatee making payments for the benefit of other people is valid, provided that the condition is expressed clearly. However, a condition in a Will which requires a pecuniary, general or specific legatee to pay the inheritance tax on the entire estate could, depending on a number of factors, including the comparative values of the legacy

There are some key issues to consider when an unsecured creditor in a bankruptcy is a dissolved company. The starting point is that the dissolution of the company does not bring the claim (in the bankruptcy) to an end. On dissolution of a company, all of its property and rights vested in, or held on trust for it, immediately before dissolution are deemed to be bona vacantia and vest in the Crown (or in the Duchy of Lancaster or Duke of Cornwall if the company’s registered office was in Lancaster or Cornwall respectively). Therefore the unsecured creditor is, on the face of it, the Crown. It would be prudent to check two points, however: • whether prior to the dissolution of the company, there

Yes. Assuming the block only contains those two flats or a maximum of three flats, the joint tenants do have the right to collectively enfranchise. Section 5(5) of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (LRHUDA 1993) will not preclude them because it only applies where a person is a qualifying tenant of at least three flats. Here, the joint tenants are qualifying tenants of only two flats. LRHUDA

Section 5 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (LTA 1987) provides for qualifying tenants to have the right of first refusal in respect of certain disposals made by their landlord. Unless the landlord follows the procedure set out in LTA 1987, s 5, the tenants can compel the transfer to them of the land disposed of and a criminal offence is committed. Therefore, relevant landlords must take care in ensuring that where they are obliged to do so, they comply with the statutory requirements. LTA 1987 applies to residential premises, which consist of the whole or part of a building and which contain two or more flats held by qualifying tenants, who exceed 50% of the total number of flats. The scheme of LTA 1987 is to give

In answering this Q&A we have limited our research to cover when a cause of action in a contract claim accrues for limitation purposes. In conducting our research we have focussed on the date of the cause of action accruing, with specific reference to instances of fraud and deliberate concealment. Limitation period for a breach of contract claim Generally, the limitation period for bringing a claim for breach of contract is six years from the date of breach of a 'simple contract' (one which is not under seal or a contract of record) or 12 years from the date of breach

We have assumed that this question involves the professional deputy acting as a litigation friend for the claimant. The question is whether the professional deputy's fees for acting as the claimant's litigation friend are recoverable from the defendant as either (i) part of the claimant's recoverable costs of the litigation or (ii) as part of the claimant's recoverable damages from the defendant. Professional deputies Deputies are appointed by the Court of Protection to manage the property and financial affairs of those who are mentally incapable of doing so themselves. Where a professional deputy has been appointed, there are rules in place for the recovery of their fees, see, eg Practice Note: Costs and expenses in the Court of Protection. See also the guidance on professional deputy costs,