There are a number of exceptions to the general principle that improvements carried out by the tenant are to be disregarded when establishing the rent under section 34 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954). Where an improvement that has been made to property has been carried out by a tenant pursuant to an obligation to the landlord, it will be taken into account when determining the rent. If, however, the improvement was not carried out pursuant to an obligation under the lease (but rather, for example, by way of a licence

Under section 38A(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954), a landlord and tenant may agree that the provisions of LTA 1954, ss 24–28 shall be excluded in relation to the tenancy. Under LTA 1954, s 38A(2)–(4), such an agreement must comply with two requirements. First, the landlord must serve on the tenant a notice in the form, or substantially in the form, set out in the Regulatory Reform (Business Tenancies) (England and Wales) Order 2003 (RRO 2003), SI 2003/3096, Sch 1 before the tenant enters into the tenancy (or—if earlier—becomes contractually bound to do so). Secondly, the requirements specified in RRO 2003, SI 2003/3096, Sch 2 must also be met. In short, these

Part VII of the Housing Act 1996 (HA 1996) governs homelessness in England. It sets out various duties that are owed by local authorities to persons found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness. Under HA 1996, s 202, an applicant has the right to request a review of any decision by a local housing authority as to his eligibility for assistance, and of any decision as to what duty, if any, is owed, as well as other specified decisions as set out in subsection HA 1996, s 202(1). Such a request must be made before the end of the period of 21 days beginning on the day on which the person

As long ago as Foss v Harbottle the principle that, due to its separate legal personality, a wrong done to a company giving rise to a cause of action accruing to that company, could only be pursued by the company itself. Where a personal claim arising out of the same facts reflects the loss of the company, such a cause of action cannot be maintained (Prudential v Newman Industries). The doctrine has since been developed to include employees as well as shareholders, and subsequently to creditors, but was then narrowed again by the Supreme Court in Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd. This confirmed that the prohibition on recovery of reflective loss applied only to shareholders

Case law on wooden flooring Physical Construction: Butterworths Property Law Service [264] talks about drafting leases and in doing so states: ‘Having checked the construction of the building, the parcels clause should be absolutely clear as to what is or is not included, eg in a demise of part of a building: 'the plasterboard attached to the loadbearing walls but not the loadbearing walls themselves'; 'the entire window frames'; 'the floorboards but not the joists on which they rest', etc. If there are suspended floors or ceilings, the tenant will wish to ensure that he has access to the voids for the purposes of cabling and ducting. He must therefore ensure that either the void space is included in

Commercial analysis: The claimant was granted a one-year ‘springboard’ injunction after the defendant had been found to have misused the claimant’s confidential information relating to a safe method of flavoured-oil production, which the defendant had obtained from the claimant’s safety disclosures. The court applied Coco v A.N. Clark (Engineers) Ltd to the question of liability, and Vestergaard Frandsen A/S v Bestnet Europe Ltd and Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co to the question as to whether an injunction should be granted. Jonathan Gale, barrister at St Philips Chambers, considers the case of Kerry Ingredients (UK) Ltd v Bakkavor Group Ltd and other companies.

Commercial analysis: The Court of Appeal has considered an appeal by a claimant who sought to rely on a loss of a chance analysis that had been briefly included in particulars of claim but had not formed any real part of the trial and whether a settlement of earlier proceedings against a different defendant precluded recovery in these proceedings Jonathan Edwards, barrister at Radcliffe Chambers, considers the case of McGill v Sports and Entertainment Media Group and others.

Commercial analysis: This Scottish case concerns whether or not the actions of a number of individuals were sufficient to give rise to a partnership between them for the development and subsequent exploitation of a gay dating app for mobile telephones. In deciding the case, it was necessary for the court (the Outer House Court of Session, Lord Tyre) to analyse and apply the case law relating to the existence of a partnership. Stefan Ramel, barrister at Guildhall Chambers, considers the case of (1) Worbey & (2) Farrell v (1) Campbell; (2) Wapo Y Wapa Limited; & (3) Trustee in Bankruptcy of Steven Elliot.

Dispute Resolution analysis: In Dring v Cape Distribution Ltd & Anor (Constitution—access to courts—open justice) [2017] EWHC 2103 (QB), the ​High Court considered the right of access to court documents and open justice in the context of an application (pursuant to CPR 5.4C​)​ to obtain trial bundles etc in asbestos litigation, which settled just before judgment. CPR Part 3.1(2)(m) gave the court jurisdiction to make an order restricting the entitlement of a party to a private law claim from seeking an order for costs, and it was appropriate in the instant case to make such an order. Andrew Butler, barrister at Tanfield Chambers, London, considers the case.

Private Client analysis:The appellant, a trustee of a charity, appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory) (the Tribunal) in respect of a decision of the Charity Commission. Schedule 6 to the Charities Act 2011 (CA 2011) determines the circumstances in which an appeal can be made. The Appellant had not complied with directions to specify which provision of Schedule 6 he relied upon and his claim was struck out under the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 (the Tribunal Rules), r 8. Written by Lynne Counsell, barrister at Addington Chambers.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) held that article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 (Brussels I), which deals with tort claims, must be interpreted to mean that the place where the harmful event occurred is not the place where the damage occurred if the damage is exclusively financial damage directly in the applicant’s bank account and is a direct result of an unlawful act committed in another Member State. If there are other connecting factors, as there were in Kolassa, they may be sufficient to attribute jurisdiction to the courts of the place where the financial damage occurred.

Dispute Resolution analysis: Julia Dias QC of 7 King’s Bench Walk considers the case of CFC 26 Ltd and another v Brown Shipley & Co Ltd and others. Newey J considered the different threshold requirements for an extended civil restraint order (ECRO) as compared with a limited civil restraint order (LCRO) under CPR 3.11 and CPR PD 3C. He concluded that a minimum of three wholly unmeritorious claims or applications are required before an ECRO can be made, but that it is not necessary for each of those claims/applications to have been brought in the name of the person against whom the order is being sought. It is sufficient if he or she is the ‘real’ party behind claims or applications which have nominally been brought by a third party.