Sections 18–25 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA 1985) set out a statutory code for service charges and related matters in respect of residential dwellings. Its most important features are: • service costs can only be recovered if they are reasonably incurred • only works or services performed

The recoverable loss under a share purchase agreement limitation of liability clause for breach of warranty is governed by contract law. The warranties are contractual statements or assurances as to the condition of the target company, its business, assets and liabilities. If a seller gives a warranty in a share purchase agreement that proves to be inaccurate, untrue or misleading, this will give rise to a claim for breach of warranty entitling the buyer to an action for damages against the seller. The limitations

In relation to the first question, there are no costs incurred prior to the issuing of an application in insolvency proceedings on behalf of an insolvency office-holder recoverable even if the subsequent order does not expressly state that they are. The starting point is CPR 44.10. Where the court makes an order which does not mention costs, the effect of the rule is that no party is entitled to costs from the other party. That is subject to a number of qualifications specified in that rule, but none of those provide for an insolvency office-holder to recover costs against an opposing party in litigation. In this respect, there is no distinction to be drawn between legal costs attributable to the application incurred before or during the litigation. CPR 44.10 applies to insolvency proceedings by virtue of the Insolvency

Until recently the position was that such costs were not to be included when determining whether the costs assessment had decreased the costs or not by at least one-fifth such that the solicitor had to pay the costs of the costs assessment. In Bentine, the Court of Appeal held that section 70 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (SA 1974)

Section 25 of the Land Drainage Act 1991 (LDA 1991) provides the drainage board concerned with powers to require works for maintaining flow of watercourse, where any ordinary watercourse is in such a condition that the proper flow of water is impeded—unless the condition is attributable to subsidence due to mining operations (including pumping). Internal drainage boards (IDBs) are public bodies, created under LDA 1991, that manage water levels in designated areas, called internal drainage districts, where there is a special need for drainage. IDBs are responsible for the drainage of land, defined in LDA 1991, as defence against water including sea water, irrigation other than spraying irrigation, warping and the carrying on, for any purpose, of any other practice which involves engagement of the level of

For the sake of this Q&A, it is assumed the lease of the property in question has expired when the claim for diminution in value is made. Damages at common law The measure of damages in a dilapidations claim is the reasonable cost the landlord has incurred in returning the property to the state in which it ought to have been left, and therefore the starting point for calculating damages will be the actual loss suffered by the landlord in carrying out these works. The level of damages will be that which is reasonable to compensate the landlord for losses incurred in remedying the tenant's breach. As well as the cost of carrying out the works, damages

Employment analysis: In a significant post-Uber decision, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has clarified the test for determining worker status. The judgment has potential wide-reaching implications for thousands of NHS dentists. Peter Daly, partner, and Hannah Mathews, associate, both at Doyle Clayton, discuss the EAT’s recent decision.

This Q&A assumes that the render and external woodwork is outside of the tenant’s demise. The landlord will only have repairing obligations to the extent of any express obligations in the tenancy, subject to a few exceptions, including: • an obligation to ensure any retained premises are in such condition as to not cause damage to the tenant • an obligation to ensure demised premises being constructed are completed in a good and workmanlike manner using proper materials so as to be reasonably fit for human habitation • a duty, if the landlord designed or built the premises, to take reasonable care to ensure the building is free from any defect likely to cause injury • where a term is implied in order to give business efficacy to the transaction. However, a term will not be implied if there is a comprehensive code dealing with repairs, etc • repairing covenants implied by statute, including repairing obligations in respect of short residential

We have been unable to find any authority to support the proposition that, in itself, a director of a company is jointly and severally liable for any other director's overdrawn loan account. Though we consider it likely that if a loan account is in joint names (for example in the company's ledgers) and is truly operated as such, then the joint named directors would probably be jointly and severally liable for any overdrawn amount on that given account. There may, however, be other ways

The Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) guidance on CE marking provides that it is the manufacturer’s responsibility to: • carry out the conformity assessment • set up the technical file • issue the EC Declaration of Conformity, and • place the CE marking on the product CE marking is mandatory, but only for certain products. For the full list of products for which CE marking is required, see the BEIS guidance on Products that need CE marking. With regard to whether manufacturers are required to keep records relating to CE certification, the BEIS guidance states that ‘You must keep certain documentation once you have placed the CE marking on your product’ for various reasons, including notably that the Market Surveillance

In Carlson v Townsend, the Court of Appeal held that it was not the intention or purpose of the pre-action protocols to override the privilege attaching to the report of an expert whom a party had instructed but decided not to call. That case was followed by Jackson v Marley Davenport Ltd, in which the Court of Appeal confirmed that there could be: ‘no doubt that, if an expert makes a report for the purpose of a party’s legal advisers being able to give legal advice to their client, or for discussion

Where there is bank funding for an acquisition, our view is that it is market practice for the lender to have relied on any due diligence reports produced for the buyer as these are key to the lender’s willingness to lend against that asset. The alternative is for the lender to commission its own due diligence, carried out by its own advisers, which the buyer/ borrower would then have to pay for—this involves a duplication of effort to some degree and is often regarded as unwelcome by buyers given the work has already been