Restrictions against the issuing of winding-up petitions were introduced by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA 2020) as a result of the effect on the economy of the coronavirus pandemic and subsequent lockdown. The government introduced various ways in which businesses and their employees were protected to some extent from the effect of the pandemic including the furlough scheme and bounce back loans. Other restrictions changed aspects of insolvency legislation such as that regarding wrongful trading and winding-up petitions. CIGA 2020, Sch 10 as it was first

In the event of a service charge dispute, the starting point for resolving the dispute will be the lease terms. The following PSL content may be useful for research: Commercial service charge disputes—overview and Practice Note: Commercial service charges—what expenses can the landlord recover? In particular see the section entitled ‘Service charge disputes’ in

This Q&A has assumed that it has been established the tenant has certainly overpaid on the terms of the lease. The tenant should first check the express terms of the lease itself to see if provision has been made for what is to happen in the event of any such overpayments. If it has, the tenant may have a remedy under the terms of the lease. Assuming the lease does not address overpayments of rent, the primary cause of action in these circumstances would be for money paid under a mistake, giving rise to a restitutionary claim in unjust enrichment. For example, in the case

This Q&A explores who the tenant of a commercial unit should bring legal proceedings against when they suffer damage from a leak from a residential property upstairs. Specifically, this Q&A addresses the question of whether, in circumstances where the landlord is the same for both the commercial and residential unit, the commercial tenant should bring proceedings against the residential tenant or instead against the landlord requiring them to enforce the residential tenant’s lease. The nature of claims for water damage Where a tenant of property suffers water damage to their property, they will usually bring a claim against their landlord (since the damage is usually the result of disrepair for which the landlord is responsible). A claim against the landlord is usually

A covenant to comply with title matters ‘by way of indemnity only’ Where a transfer of land takes place, the parties should effect the transfer using Land Registry Form TR1. The use of Form TR1 is required by Schedule 1 to the Land Registration Rules 2003. It is common for transfers of land to include an indemnity covenant stating that one party (which in fact is usually the transferee rather than the transferor) is covenanting with the other to observe and perform the covenants relating to the subject property. Commonly the indemnity covenant specifies that the transferee is covenanting with the transferor to do so ‘by way of

Covenants restricting the use of land imposed by a seller may be divided into three classes: • covenants imposed for the seller’s own benefit • covenants imposed as owner of other land, of which the land sold formed a part, and intended to protect or benefit the unsold land • covenants on a sale of land to various buyers who, with their respective successors-in-title, are intended mutually to enjoy the benefit of, and be bound by, the covenants Covenants imposed for the seller’s own

The question here is whether the failure to hand over the key to the rear access fire door is a breach of a contractual term to give vacant possession on completion of an assignment of a lease of business premises when the other keys to the premises are handed over. The fact that the situation has arisen on the assignment of a lease rather than on the sale of a freehold property makes no difference to the answer to this Q&A which would be the same in either case. Vacant possession means free from any occupation by the vendor or a third party and free from any claim to a right to possession

In answering this Q&A, we have made the following assumptions: • the debts in question were ordinary business trade debts due to the company • the debts had not been assigned by the company to the director, whether expressly or impliedly • the director’s direction, and payment of the debts to him, occurred prior to the company entering into administration Further, as you appear to have disregarded any claim(s) against the director, we make no reference to any such potential claim(s). The starting point is that the debts were contractually due to the company and therefore formed part of the company’s assets—accordingly the company could (subject to its articles and putting to one side any future challenge

This Q&A considers whether in the course of the disqualification proceedings the lawyer is able to answer questions about that advice without obtaining a waiver. For the purposes of this Q&A, it has been assumed that the privilege belongs to the company, and is therefore controlled by the liquidators. The first question is whether there is any privilege that the company could rely on as against the director. It is assumed that the advice was given to the director either in writing or orally, albeit in their capacity as director. There may be an argument that as between the company and

This Q&A is about set-off involving transactions with the trustee. The answer is no. The company has to prove for its claim in the bankruptcy (section 285(3) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986)). It will be entitled to a dividend along with all other creditors in the bankruptcy. If the trustee took the claim into account when agreeing the price for the shares, the company would be being paid in full and so achieve an advantage over the other creditors. Nonetheless, claims between a creditor and the bankrupt can be set off against each other under IA 1986, s 323. This applies ‘where before the commencement of the bankruptcy there have been mutual credits, mutual debts or other mutual dealings between the bankrupt and any creditor of the bankrupt

Section 117 of the Insolvency Act 1986 provides that the High Court has jurisdiction to wind up any company registered in England and Wales where the share capital exceeds £120,000. Practice Direction on Insolvency Proceedings (PDIP), para 3 covers the distribution of business and provides that applications should be listed for an initial hearing before an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Judge in the Royal Courts of Justice (ie the Business and Property Courts in the Rolls Building) or a District Judge sitting in a District Registry. PDIP, para 3.3 states that applications for an injunction pursuant to the Court’s inherent

The Land Registration Act 2002 (LRA 2002) made various changes requiring land to be registered on the happening of certain transactions. LRA 2002 also made changes to the operation of the law of adverse possession relating to registered land. LRA 2002 abolished the operation of section 75(1) of the Land Registration Act 1925, which provided that the estate of the registered proprietor was, at the expiration of the 12-year limitation period established by sections 15 and 17 of