A guarantee is an agreement by way of contract where the guarantor agrees to perform the obligations of another. Guarantees are commonly seen in contracts and in leases, to the effect that if the principal does not comply with their obligations (for example to pay a loan, or in this scenario to comply with the lessee covenants under the lease of the third party), the guarantor will be liable. As a result, should the tenant default, the landlord is entitled to look to the guarantor (often to take on the lease, but otherwise

For our full suite of materials on paid annual leave entitlement, see: Holiday and holiday pay—a guide to our materials. In particular, see our Practice Note: Statutory paid holiday—calculating holiday pay. The information below relates to statutory holiday entitlement and assumes that the employee has normal working hours and is not a part-year worker. The employee’s contract of employment should also be considered for any terms that may be relevant, eg if the employee has a contractual entitlement that is more generous than the statutory minimum. Workers in Great Britain have a statutory entitlement to 5.6 weeks of paid annual

A liquidator of a company has broad power under section 178 of the Insolvency Act 1986 to disclaim any ‘onerous property’. ‘Property’ includes leasehold property, and ‘onerous’ property is defined as: ‘(a) any unprofitable contract, and (b) any other property of the company which is unsaleable or not readily saleable or is such that it may give rise to a liability to pay money or perform any other onerous act.’ Therefore, provided that the liquidator considers that the property is onerous, it is able to disclaim it—and can be put on notice to make an election as to whether or not

It is not permissible for a person (or, in the case of joint owners of a property, persons) to grant a lease to themselves: Rye v Rye. In that case, two brothers owned the freehold of a property where they carried out a business as partners in a solicitors’ firm. They orally agreed to grant a lease to themselves as partners. The House of Lords held that this was not possible. There are a number of reasons for this, including that a person cannot contract with

In this Q&A we refer to a signature by a Head of Finance who is not a director of any of the companies. A company can execute simple contracts in one of two ways: • by a company, or • on behalf of a company See section 43 of the Companies Act 2006. Execution by a company can be achieved by way of a signature of two authorised signatories or a director who signs in the presence of a witness who attests the director’s signature. Execution can also be achieved by a person signing (usually a director) the contract under their express or implied authority. Whether

This Precedent is a notice to a company in relation to a proposed ordinary resolution to remove a director from office. A director can be removed from office at any time by ordinary resolution passed by the shareholders of the company at a general meeting, despite anything to the contrary in any contract between the directors and the company. The resolution cannot be passed by way of written resolution (unless the company is a single member company); it must be passed at a general meeting. For further information, see Practice Note: Ireland—Removal of a director. The proposed resolution to remove a director is

This Precedent is a notice to a company in relation to a proposed ordinary resolution to remove a director from office. A director can be removed from office at any time by ordinary resolution passed by the shareholders of the company at a general meeting, despite anything to the contrary in any contract between the directors and the company. The resolution cannot be passed by way of written resolution (unless the company is a single member company); it must be passed at a general meeting. For further information, see Practice Note: Ireland—Removal

We refer you to the following Practice Notes: • Consumer credit agreements—pre-contract requirements • Responsible lending requirements—CONC 5 • FSMA 2000—private rights of action for breach of statutory duty • Consumer Redress Schemes The rules in chapters 4 and 5 of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)’s Consumer Credit Sourcebook (CONC 4 and 5) replaced the Office of Fair Trading (OFT)’s Irresponsible Lending Guidelines (ILG) that were in place before regulation of consumer credit became the responsibility of the FCA. You will note from Practice Note: FSMA

Dispute Resolution analysis: Canaccord (formerly Collins Stewart), a second-tier provider of contracts for differences had a contract with a broker, Medsted, under which Collins Stewart was required to pay commission to Medsted in respect of investors introduced by Medsted. In breach of that contract, Collins Stewart did business directly with certain investors, thereby depriving Medsted of the commission to which it was entitled. At first instance the judge found that Medsted had suffered loss, but, on public policy grounds, awarded only nominal damages to Medsted, on the basis that Medsted was a fiduciary which had breached its fiduciary duties to the investors by failing to disclose the amount of commission it received from Collins Stewart. The Court of Appeal found: (a) that Medsted was a fiduciary, but (b) that, in the circumstances of the case, the scope of its duties did not extend so far as to require it to reveal the extent of its commission. It therefore allowed the appeal and made an order for damages to be assessed. Written by Iain G Mitchell QC (Scotland), barrister at Tanfield Chambers.

The Welsh Government has published guidance for landlords on the Renting Homes (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Wales) Regulations 2026, setting out changes arising from the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 which prohibit discrimination against contract-holders with children or those receiving welfare benefits. The guidance explains that, from 1 June 2026, new fundamental terms are inserted into most occupation contracts under the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016, giving contract-holders the right to have children live in or visit the dwelling and to claim benefits, with any restriction on children permitted only where it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, such as preventing overcrowding. Temporary exceptions apply where existing insurance contracts impose such restrictions, but these cease upon renewal, after which conflicting provisions have no effect, and supported accommodation is excluded from the requirement relating to children. The guidance also requires landlords to update occupation contracts and provide written notice of the new terms within 14 days, with any incompatible existing terms rendered ineffective unless justified by a legitimate aim or valid insurance exception.

Property Disputes analysis: The Court of Appeal has held that where a landlord is required to serve qualifying tenants of flats with an offer notice pursuant to section 5 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (LTA 1987) (tenants’ rights of first refusal) and the transaction involves the disposal of an estate or interest in more than one building, then by virtue of section 5(3) they should ‘sever the transaction’ and serve separate offer notices in relation to each building. When such a disposal is pursuant to a contract and section 5A is engaged, the requirements set out in section 5A(2) will be met by serving a notice containing the particulars of the contract as they relate to each building. In response to arguments on statutory interpretation, the Court of Appeal held that the requirements in section 5A (and 5B-E) are incorporated into section 5, and must be read in the light of it, consequently, the interpretation of section 5A in the circumstances which have arisen becomes clear and there is no need to resort to presumptions. Written by Gemma de Cordova, barrister at Gatehouse Chambers.

Arbitration analysis: The case involved a challenge to a decision by an arbitral tribunal which had rendered a ‘nil’ award in a set of claims and counterclaims concerning an expansion of a plant at a project site in Rajasthan. The application for setting aside the arbitral award was granted and the court provided helpful guidance on the importance of reading/understanding the basic contractual framework between the parties to avoid an arbitral award being vulnerable to challenge. The decision signifies the importance of arbitrators to fundamentally understand the nature of the relationship/framework between the parties before engaging in the merits of the dispute. The judge referred to five decisions of the Supreme Court of India, including the recent decision of DMRC Ltd v Delhi Airport Metro Express, to re-iterate that an interference with an arbitral award is justified if the interpretation accorded to the contract is unreasonable and ignores the specific terms of the contract. Written by Muizz Drabu, associate at Stewarts.