In some cases, a party’s bonus can make up a significant part of their income. Although bonuses accrued post-separation may be the result of the party’s sole endeavours, and so the court may be reluctant to include them as marital property (H v H), it should be noted that future earning capacity is expressly listed as a factor for the court to consider at section 25(2)(a) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. While not subject to the sharing principle, a certain proportion of one party’s annual bonus may have to be paid to the other party to ensure that the receiving party’s needs are met. The court does have the ability

When it comes to notice periods for terminating a contract of employment, the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996): • requires a worker’s written statement of employment particulars (to which most workers are entitled, and which can take the form of an employment contract) to include, among other things, particulars of: • the length of notice which the worker is obliged to give and entitled to receive to terminate their contract, and • in the case of a fixed-term contract, the date the fixed-term contract is to end • provides for minimum periods of notice (in relation to employees who qualify for the right) that must be complied with for an employer, and an employee, to bring a contract to an end (ERA 1996, s 86). If the employment contract specifies a longer notice period (in each case) than the statutory

Section 37(6) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (LRA 1967) provides that: ‘Section25(1),(2), (4) of the Rent Act 1977 shall apply to the ascertainment of the purposes of ...[Part 1]... of this Act of the rateable value of a house and premises or any other property as they apply to the ascertainment of that of a dwelling house for the purposes of that Act.’ Section 25 of the Rent Act 1977 states: ‘(1) Except where this Act otherwise provides, the rateable value on any day of a dwelling-house shall be ascertained for the purposes of this Act as follows: (a) if the dwelling-house is a hereditament

Generally, case management costs are recoverable in high value claims if they have been reasonably incurred, see Practice Note Catastrophic injury claims—conduct of the claim. It is imperative to keep an eye on case management costs, however, as where they are high and exceed previous estimates the defendant may seek to argue that they should not pay for the excess in line with the claimant’s duty to mitigate their

Revocation and ‘last Will’ clauses Wills, including homemade Wills based on drafts in standard form Will packs, should contain a revocation and last Will clause, usually at the beginning of the Will. An example of such a clause would be: ‘I revoke all prior Wills, codicils and testamentary dispositions made by me and declare this to be my last Will and testament’. It is assumed, for the purposes of this Q&A, that the clause in question expressly revokes any previous Wills. Section 20 of the Wills Act 1837 states that the whole or part of a Will may be revoked by another Will or declaration in writing duly executed in accordance with the statute. The revocation clause must be quite

CPR PD 56, para 3.12(2) requires that: ‘...in his defence the defendant must state with particulars— (a) the defendant’s grounds of opposition; (b) full details of those grounds of opposition’ (emphasis added) The landlord should set out the grounds in as much detail as

Case study X has a lease of a flat which includes additional land to the flat demise which forms part of a ransom strip to a development. Y is buying the freehold of the ransom strip. The lease of the flat and additional land prohibits the assignment of part of the leasehold property. X wants to assign the lease of the ransom strip to Y so that the lease of the ransom strip merges with the freehold and therefore ceases to exist. The freehold unencumbered ransom strip can then be

Section 60(1) of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (LRHUDA 1993) sets down the elements of the freeholder’s costs that can be recovered from the tenant in a claim for a lease extension. Broadly, the tenant must pay the reasonable costs incurred in: • any investigation (reasonably undertaken) of the right to a new lease • obtaining a valuation, and • the grant of a new lease This includes the costs of the competent landlord, as well as any intermediate landlord and any third party to the tenant’s lease. See Commentary: Costs incurred in connection with new lease to be paid by tenant: Halsbury's

The landlord’s solicitors have confirmed that they were given such authority from the landlord to sign the counter-notice however they have refused to provide evidence of this upon request. Is there any way to compel the landlord's solicitors to provide evidence of the authority? Part II of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (LRHUDA 1993) allows a tenant to acquire a new lease of their flat by service of a notice under LRHUDA 1993, s 42. The landlord is permitted by LRHUDA 1993, s 45

In this scenario, a difficulty arises as the headlease is shorter than the extended underlease, but the covenants requiring the freeholder to insure and reinstate the building are contained in the headlease and are, therefore, contractual obligations between the freeholder and the headlessee. The underlessee has the right to require the headlessee

Local Authorities will commonly lease property to registered housing providers to provide accommodation for persons entitled to it. These arrangements are often made under sections 24–26 of the Local Government Act 1988 by the disposal of land for development as housing accommodation. The general consent in this regard provided by the Secretary of State is given on the condition that any housing accommodation to be developed on the land shall be let as social housing or shared ownership or a lease for the elderly or used as temporary

The first step is for the terms of the agreements, ie the assignments, to be scrutinised. Even where the lease does not restrict whole or part, the terms of the lease should be checked to ascertain whether copies of any dealings must be provided to the landlord. The terms of the assignment may be determinative in clarifying whether the ‘tenant’ referred to, namely the original lessee of the car parking spaces, or ‘assignee’, is responsible for any part, or indeed the entirety of, the associated service charge. The original lease may also require that assignment is allowed unless the assignee covenants directly with