Non-parties to litigation may be asked to preserve documentation for the purpose of litigation where proceedings are subject to provisions of the disclosure pilot under CPR PD 51U. The duty under CPR PD 51U, paras 3.1(1) and 3.2(1) includes: • an obligation to send a written notification in any form to relevant employees and former employees of the party where there are reasonable grounds for believing that the employee or former employee may be in possession of disclosable documents, which are not also in the party’s possession (in accordance

A notice of acceptance under section 6 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (LTA 1987) is not registrable at HM Land Registry. LTA 1987, s 20(2) states that any reference to an offer is reference to an offer made subject to contract, and any reference to the acceptance of an offer is a

The prescribed form section 21 notice (Form 6A) is for use in terminating assured shorthold tenancies (ASTs) under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 (HA 1988). Its use is mandatory for English ASTs which were entered into on or after 1 October 2015, except statutory periodic tenancies which arose on or after that date, on expiry of an AST granted before that date. A notice containing an error may still be valid in exceptional circumstances, but only where the notice is so clear and unambiguous as to leave a reasonable recipient in no reasonable doubt as to its intended effect. The test is objective. In

The original position under the Environmental Protection (Duty of Care) Regulations 1991 Under regulation 2 of the Environmental Protection (Duty of Care) Regulations 1991 (EP(DC) Regs 1991), SI 1991/2839 (now revoked), the transferor and the transferee had to complete and sign a transfer note at the same time as the written description of the waste is transferred. EP(DC) Regs 1991, SI 1991/2839, reg 3 specified that the transferor and the transferee are required to keep the written description of the waste and the transfer note or copies of them for two years from the transfer, while EP(DC) Regs 1991, SI 1991/2839, reg 4 imposed a duty on a person who is under a duty to

Certain tenants of flats have the statutory right to buy a 90-year extension of the lease under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (LRHUDA 1993). The right is exercised by service of a notice of claim under LRHUDA 1993, s 42 on the competent landlord (or an intermediate landlord) and any third party to the tenant’s lease. By LRHUDA 1993, ss 5(4)(b) and 39(3), where a lease is held in joint names, the joint tenants are regarded as a single tenant for the purposes

We refer to Q&A: Can a notice of severance of a joint tenancy over a bank account or investment be validly served on a joint tenant who has lost capacity? There is no attorney or deputy appointed. which raises similar issues to this query. Severance

It is assumed that there are no other potential issues with the section 21 notice. You may find the following Practice Note: Tenancy deposit schemes useful for your purposes. Deposit requirements A landlord must, within 30 days of receipt of the deposit, protect the deposit in a government-backed tenancy deposit scheme and comply with the initial requirements of the scheme by giving the tenant and any relevant person certain prescribed information. The prescribed information includes (under the Housing (Tenancy Deposits) (Prescribed Information) Order 2007, SI 2007/797): • the contact details of the tenancy deposit scheme (TDS) • the landlord's contact details (or, from 6 April

Because we are not privy to the background of this particular situation, and it is not clear if this is a solvent or insolvent liquidation, or what role the parent plays with the subsidiary, we have kept this Q&A wide to cover a spectrum of possible scenarios. Our research therefore covers: all situations where a winding up might be possible, including by a creditor or by the company when the subsidiary is insolvent, or if the subsidiary is solvent then via a members’ voluntary liquidation (MVL). In addition, the terms of the articles of the subsidiary should be consulted. In what circumstances can a company be wound up and by whom? Voluntary winding up by the company or directors For information on who can wind up a company voluntarily, and how, see Practice Note: Creditors' voluntary liquidation—circumstances in which an insolvent company may be wound up voluntarily. Voluntary winding up is initiated by the company itself

The liability of a parent company for contaminated land where one of its subsidiaries is liable depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. The subsidiary itself could be liable for various reasons, eg because it caused or knowingly permitted contamination or owns or occupies a site with pre-existing contamination. Liability for contamination Liability for contamination may arise under a number of regimes, see Practice Note: Contaminated land—interaction with other regimes. However, liability for contaminated land under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Pt IIA (EPA 1990) is of particular concern because innocent owners and occupiers can be retrospectively liable for remediation where the original polluter cannot be found. Liability can attach to anyone who is an 'appropriate person' under the EPA 1990, s 78F. For more information on the contaminated land regime, see Practice Notes: • Contaminated land—definition of contaminated land • Contaminated land—who may be liable? • Contaminated land—process for determining liability Pt IIA does not directly address the

A parent company is not responsible for the acts or omissions of its subsidiary simply by virtue of its status as parent. Each subsidiary has separate corporate responsibility and any intention to pierce the corporate veil must be clearly and unequivocally expressed in the statute. However, a parent company can be fixed with liability if its knowledge of, and ability to, intervene in the affairs of the subsidiary are sufficient to create a duty of care towards any person suffering damage or injury due to the subsidiary's acts or omissions. Crucially, if a parent company has 'superior knowledge' about the nature and management of particular risks, and is aware of a 'systemic failure' on the part of its subsidiary, then the court may be willing to find a duty of care. Such circumstances may arise where the parent company: • has taken direct responsibility for devising a health and safety policy the adequacy of which is the subject of the claim, or • controls the operations which give

Adverse possession was until 2003 a common law doctrine that enabled a person who had been in factual possession of land owned by another for a specified period of time (12 years), with an intention to possess (often deduced from the acts making up factual possession), without the consent of the owner: see, generally, J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham. In such circumstances, the owner was barred from obtaining possession of the land, and ownership passed to the trespasser. Frequently, a defence of adverse possession was raised in possession proceedings (brought under Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR 1998), SI 1998/3132, Pt

At the outset, it is important to distinguish between three separate, if related concepts: disclosure; inspection; and reliance on a document. Disclosure, inspection and reliance A party’s disclosure obligation is to search for, and disclose, documents currently or formerly in a party's control. Disclosure is defined by CPR 31.2 as stating that the document exists or has existed. There is a difference between not disclosing a document (in which case the other side may never know it has existed) and not allowing inspection of a document. CPR 31.3 confirms that a party to whom a document has been disclosed has a right to inspect that document except where a number of exceptions apply. Even if a party has a document in its possession which it has disclosed and allowed inspection of, it might still require permission to rely on it