In general terms a policy of insurance is itself property: it vests in the personal representatives of the policyholder upon their death (Doe d Pitt v Laming). Therefore, unless there is some provision in the policy itself concerning the death of the insured, or unless some other condition of the policy has not been complied with, the policy is not void and

A tenant who holds a long lease of a flat has a statutory right (subject to compliance with statutory qualifying criteria) to a 90-year extension of the lease, for which the tenant must pay a premium. The tenant may exercise the right even though the flat forms only part of the premises demised by the existing lease; consequently the headlessee of a block of flats is prima facie entitled to claim an extension of the headlease, even though the demise includes multiple flats, as well as common parts. The right to an extended lease arises where: • the tenant has owned the leasehold interest in the flat (ie has been the registered proprietor of that interest) for at least two years before service

The Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (LRHUDA 1993) does not alter or address the position regarding arrears owed by tenants, whether participating or non-participating. Therefore, the starting point regarding arrears of service charge is: • (for old tenancies (ie tenancies granted before 1 January 1996)) the right to sue a tenant for pre-completion arrears automatically passes to the buyer with the transfer of the reversion. However, it is a chose in action which can be expressly reassigned

The Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (LRHUDA 1993) introduced the right to collective enfranchisement. This is a right upon qualification to acquire the freehold and any intermediate interests in the building. The premises LRHUDA 1993, s 3 stipulates that the premises must be: • a self-contained building or part of a building • contain at least two qualifying tenants • at least two-thirds of the flats to be held by qualifying tenants • no more than 25% on the internal floor area excluding common parts to be in non-residential use (this could include a

Part I of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (LRHUDA 1993) makes provision for qualifying tenants of flats (as defined under LRHUDA 1993) to exercise a right to have the freehold of the premises acquired on their behalf by a nominee purchaser. This is known as the right to collective enfranchisement. LRHUDA 1993, s 36 and LRHUDA 1993, Sch 9 Pt II provide that, in the circumstances envisaged by those provisions, the nominee purchaser must grant a ‘mandatory leaseback’ of certain flats and other dwelling units within the premises

Section 188(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULR(C)A 1992) requires an employer who is proposing to dismiss as redundant 20 or more employees at one establishment within a period of 90 days or less to consult with ‘all the persons who are appropriate representatives of any of the employees who may be affected by the proposed dismissals or may be affected by measures taken in connection with those dismissals’. For further information on the statutory obligations to inform and consult on collective redundancies generally, see Practice Note: Collective redundancy—statutory information and consultation obligations. An ‘affected employee’ is one who: • may be dismissed • may be affected by the proposed dismissals, or • may be affected by measures that are taken in connection with the proposed dismissals,

When a lease is disclaimed pursuant to section 178(4) of the Insolvency Act 1986, the disclaimer: • 'operates so as to determine, as from the date of the disclaimer, the rights, interests and liabilities of the company in or in respect of the property disclaimed; but • does not, except so far as is necessary for the purpose of releasing the company from any liability, affect

I t would appear that the right has been drafted in very wide terms and consideration should be given as to whether or not the right is too wide in scope to constitute an easement (as to which, see Practice Note: Easements—nature and characteristics). The extract from Halsbury’s Laws of England Volume 87 paragraph 835 explains: 'An easement does not give the dominant owner the exclusive or unrestricted use of any part of the servient

When deciding whether a tenant has breached a covenant concerning their use of the premises, a court will always look first and foremost at the wording of the particular covenant concerned. Where a covenant is worded in absolute terms, the tenant will be in breach of it irrespective of whether or not they have actually permitted the breach. For example, if the covenant were worded to say that ‘there shall not be any contaminative substances on the Property’, then the tenant would be in clear breach of covenant simply by virtue of there being contaminative substances on the Property. However, where a covenant provides that a tenant must not ‘permit’ something, the question arises as to what the word ‘permit’ means. In the case of Berton v Alliance Economic Investment Co,

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 (LTA 1927) allows a tenant to serve notice on their landlord stating its intention to carry out specified improvements for which they can subsequently claim compensation. If the landlord either does not object within three months, or the court certifies that the proposed works constitute a proper improvement, the tenant is free to go ahead with the improvement even if the lease contains an express prohibition. If the improvement is a proper one, the only circumstance in which the court cannot give the go ahead to the tenant is where the landlord offers to carry out the improvement himself in return for a reasonable increase in the rent. The court must be satisfied that the improvement: • is calculated (which means is likely) to add to the letting value of the holding as at the termination of the tenancy • is reasonable, and is suited to the character

Positive and negative covenants Most tenant covenants in a lease are negative in nature, meaning that they are worded to require the tenant not to do something specified. That contrasts with a positive covenant, which is worded so as to require the tenant to do something specified. It is self-evident that a positive covenant is more restrictive for a tenant. The extent of negative covenants The most straightforward negative covenant will state that the tenant must not do a specified thing, for example ‘the tenant shall not sublet the premises’. However, a lease may extend the restriction so that it prohibits not just the tenant from doing the specified act but also requires the tenant not to permit

This question raises a number of themes: • the need to serve a notice under section 146 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA 1925) before exercising a right to forfeit a lease • the contents of such a notice • the distinction between remediable and irremediable breaches • the waiver of the right to forfeit. It is convenient to consider each in turn A right of re-entry or forfeiture for a breach of any covenant in a lease is not enforceable, by action or otherwise, unless and until the lessor serves a notice on the tenant. That notice must: • specify