We have broken this question down into two parts. Question 1—In the context of enforcing an English court judgment, is there a significant risk that a carve out for interim relief from an exclusive jurisdiction clause would render that clause asymmetric for the purposes of the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements–with reasoning in support? An asymmetric jurisdiction clause is a jurisdiction clause in which different jurisdictional provisions apply to each party

We are not aware of any authority on the specific issue raised by this Q&A. The receipt of the loan repayment (including the index-linked element) by the trustees will be subject to income tax so far as the receipt is treated as income and subject to capital gains tax so far as the receipt is treated as capital. Generally, it will be clear if a receipt is capital or income, however there are occasions

The facilities agreement will often contain undertakings from the obligors that may provide sufficient protection against a potential competing debt claim from an obligor—this needs to be considered on a case by case basis. The guarantee wording in the loan market association standard form leveraged facilities agreement, for example, prevents an obligor from claiming or proving as a creditor in competition to a finance party. The document also obliges a creditor obligor to grant security over its rights as a creditor in favour of the finance parties. Therefore, it is not invariably be the case that a subordination deed is used in the

Since 6 April 2007, all deposits taken by landlords for residential assured shorthold tenancies (ASTs) in England and Wales must be protected by a tenancy deposit scheme (TDS). For the purposes of a TDS, section 212 of the Housing Act 2004 (HA 2004) provides: ‘...tenancy deposit, in relation to a shorthold tenancy, means any money intended to be held (by the landlord or otherwise) as security for— (a) the performance of any obligations of the tenant, or (b) the discharge of any liability of his, arising under or in connection with the tenancy.’ Pursuant

In answering this Q&A, we have assumed you are referring to regulation 11 of the Registered Pension Scheme (Authorised Payments) Regulations 2009, SI 2009/1171 (SI 2009/1171, reg 11), which—unlike its de minimis counterpart in SI 2009/1171, reg 12 (which applies to large occupational pension schemes)—does not expressly caveat bulk transfers from a ‘related scheme’ to the receiving scheme from the conditions that need to be satisfied for a small lump sum payment. The absence of such a caveat could prevent the payment of a small pot lump sum from the receiving scheme under SI 2009/1171, reg 11, since SI 2009/1171, reg 11(1)(f) prohibits recognised transfers from that scheme or any related scheme in the three years preceding

This Q&A refers you to paragraph 14.67 of Restrictive Covenants and Freehold Land, by Andrew Francis, which discusses the meaning of ‘building’ in

As explained in Practice Note: SDLT—multiple dwellings relief, paragraph 7 of Schedule 6B to the Finance Act 2003 (FA 2003) determines what counts as a dwelling for the purposes of the multiple dwellings relief. The general definition is that a ‘dwelling’ is a building or part of a building which is suitable for use as a single dwelling or is in the process of being constructed or adapted for such use. There are further extensions to the definition to deal with land to be enjoyed as garden or grounds, land that subsists for the benefit of a dwelling and for off-plan purchases (sub-paragraphs (3)–(5)). Finally, the definition for these purposes specifically adopts FA 2003, s 116(2)–(5), which provides some specific

For guidance as to how the courts interpret contracts generally, see Practice Note: General rules of contract interpretation—summary and Formation and interpretation—overview. In the context of assignments, see: • Practice Note: What constitutes a valid assignment of a contract? which sets out the requirements for a valid assignment—whether one taking effect in law or in equity.

Chapter I of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (LRHUDA 1993) allows for the collective enfranchisement by qualifying tenants of flats of the premises within which their flats are contained. The process is commenced by the service of a notice (known as the initial notice) under LRHUDA 1993, s 13, whereby the qualifying tenants give notice to the relevant landlord of their claim to exercise the right to enfranchise. LRHUDA 1993, s 5 provides that a person is a qualifying tenant of a flat under a long lease. ‘Long lease’ is defined in LRHUDA 1993, s 7 as being a lease for a term exceeding 21 years, as well as

See Practice Note: Loan capital exemption from stamp duty, which covers the loan capital exemption from stamp duty and its interaction with stamp duty reserve tax (SDRT), ie that loan capital which falls within the loan capital exemption from stamp duty is not a chargeable security so that an agreement to transfer that loan capital does not attract SDRT. In particular, see section: No exemption if right to results-dependent interest of Practice Note which explains the provision in section 79(6)(b) of the Finance Act 1986 (FA 1986) which states: ‘Subject to subsections (7) to (7B) below, subsection (4) above [ie the loan capital exemption from stamp duty] does not apply to an instrument

Sections 138–146 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996) set out a fairly complex mechanism for the employer to offer the employee, and for the employee to accept, new or renewed employment as an alternative to a statutory redundancy payment. The mechanism is explained in some detail in Practice Notes: • Renewal of contract, re-engagement and trial periods, • Suitable alternative employment, and • Unreasonable refusal of alternative employment Under ERA 1996, s 138(1), for the purposes of the entitlement to a statutory redundancy payment (under ERA 1996, Pt 11), an employee is not regarded as dismissed by their employer by reason of the ending of their employment under the previous contract if: • either their contract of employment is renewed, or they are re-engaged under a new contract of employment

This Q&A considers the relevance of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) when considering whether permission is required to serve out of the jurisdiction. What is the relevance of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 (Brussels I (recast)) when considering whether permission is required to serve out of the jurisdiction? Permission is not required to serve a claim form out of the jurisdiction where the factors in CPR 6.32 or CPR 6.33 are satisfied (note that CPR 6.32 is not relevant in this instance as it only applies to Scotland and Northern Ireland). CPR 6.33 sets out various scenarios where the permission of the court is not required to serve out of the UK. These include (at CPR 6.33(2)) reference to various provisions of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 (Brussels I (recast)). These are detailed below. Permission is not required