These issues were addressed by the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) LC in Sadeh v Mirhan and Azzniv (Charitable Trust). The case involved disputes as to the service charge and insurance payable by tenants in a mixed use building. The residential tenants argued that the insurance covered risks which were not envisaged by their leases and which could not properly be charged for through the service charge—both in terms of: • commercial weighting of the insurance, and • in respect of the element of insurance relating to property owner’s liability On

This is a matter that would have to be decided upon by the executors should a request for such information be received from one or more residuary beneficiaries. They could either accede to the request or deny it. It would seem reasonable for a residuary beneficiary to make that request as the incidence of costs and expenses would impinge directly upon the final

It is necessary to consider what form the response of the solicitor who prepared the Will is to take. This response must be in the form of a statement, as explained

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 The first category of covenants is personal to the seller and only enforceable by them, unless expressly assigned. The second category ‘run’ with the land and are enforceable without express assignment by the owner for the time being of the land for the benefit of which they were imposed. At common law the burden of a covenant cannot run (ie so as to bind successive owners or occupiers) with freehold

The applicability of competition law to land agreements is something which many practitioners overlook. This is because such agreements were exempt from competition law, such exception being set out in Chapter I of Part I of the Competition Act 1998. That exemption was removed with effect from 6 April 2011 by the Competition Act (Land Agreements Exclusion Revocation) Order 2010, SI 2010/1709, following a review by the Competition Commission of the groceries market. That review considered that there were concerns that arose with regard to competition due to the use of restrictive covenants to prevent the development of land to give rise to a competitor. A restrictive covenant given by a landlord so as to be prevented from selling liquor or light refreshments on the remainder of their estate will not necessarily be void by virtue of being anti-competitive. Where an agreement that includes

What does the SRA say? The first question to consider whether solicitors or law firms are under any obligation is to ensure clients have freedom of choice. The Solicitors Practice Rules 1990 (r1) required that: a solicitor shall not do anything in the course of practising as a solicitor, or permit another person to do anything on his or her behalf, which compromises or impairs or is likely to compromise or impair… a person's freedom to instruct a solicitor of his or her choice The

Whether a restrictive covenant binds a successor in title will depend on the specific circumstances. Check that: • the benefit of the covenant passed to the buyer • the burden of the covenant ran with the burdened land, and • the restrictive covenant was properly registered See: Due diligence—restrictive covenants—checklist. This Q&A assumes that: • the relevant restrictive covenant was made on or after 13 October 2003 • the burdened land has since been transferred for valuable consideration • the benefit passed to the buyer and the burden ran with the burdened land, and • the

This Q&A assumes for the purposes of this query that there will be no merger of the leasehold interest and reversionary interest in the hands of the landlord consequent to the proposed assignment of the leasehold interest and that the landlord and tenant are not connected and do not form part of a group (whether for VAT purposes or otherwise). Generally, in circumstances where the assignor of a leasehold interest makes a payment to the assignee this will be treated as consideration for a standard-rated supply by the assignee irrespective of whether the assignee has opted to tax the relevant land (VAT Notice 742, para 10.1 and VATLP02400). Therefore assuming

The procedure for extinguishing/varying/reallocating rights of common differs depending on whether or not the land lies within one of the pilot areas. The Commons Act 2006—provisions in force for pilot areas Part 1 of the Commons Act 2006 (CoA 2006) came into force on 1 October 2008 in the seven commons registration authorities participating in a pilot scheme: the county councils of Cornwall, Devon (not Plymouth or Torbay), Hertfordshire, Kent (not Medway) and Lancashire (not Blackpool), the County of Herefordshire district council, and Blackburn with Darwen borough council. For these pilot areas, the CoA 2006, provides the following powers: Surrender and extinguishment It is possible to surrender a right of common, but the rights cannot be terminated in any other way. At common law, a right of common could cease to exist by being surrendered by its owner (usually by a deed of release) or by being extinguished

If a landlord is erecting scaffolding on their own (retained) land, the tenant would only usually be able to object if the interference or nuisance from the scaffolding constituted a breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment or a derogation from grant. The starting point is therefore to consider the extent of the demise, and whether it includes the exterior or roof of the property. The interplay between the landlord’s express rights to build and the covenant for quiet enjoyment was considered in Timothy Taylor Ltd v Mayfair House Corporation. The landlord had retained the express right to carry out building works and to erect scaffolding in order to do so. Nevertheless,

The variety of conceivable contracts made by schools for school trips, in addition to the range of such trips, means that it is not possible to give a specific answer to this question. School trips include relatively simple arrangements for a trip to a local museum, day trips on a hired coach to a castle 100km away and more complex contracts associated with a week-long ski trip to a resort abroad. The contractual arrangements involved in these trips will be different depending on the nature of the trip. As a general matter, where a legal person contracts with a supplier of goods or services, it is not acting as a consumer. The definition of ‘consumer’ in section 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 is ‘an individual acting for purposes that

Pursuant to Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954) a tenant of a business lease has a statutory right to a lease renewal at the end of the contractual term, if it satisfies criteria in LTA 1954, s 23. In broad terms, if a tenant does satisfy the relevant criteria, they will be afforded the right to remain in occupation at the end of the contractual term of a lease, and the right to apply to court for the grant of a new lease. LTA 1954, s 23 provides as follows (abridged): • subject to the provisions of this Act, this Part of this Act applies to any tenancy where the