The question relates specifically to an obligation on the contractor to inform the employer that what he is asked to build does not comply with the Building Regulations 2010 (the Building Regulations), SI 2010/2214. This implies that the contractor had no part in preparing the design and plans for the work. If there is an express term in the contract that the contractor will check the proposed design and confirm compliance with the Building Regulations, SI 2010/2214 then clearly the contractor will have a contractual duty to warn of any prospective failure to comply with the Building Regulations, SI 2010/2214 when the works are completed. The Joint Contracts Tribunal (JCT) standard forms contain relevant express obligations in respect of compliance with the Building Regulations, SI 2010/2214. In the JCT Minor Works standard form Clause 2.1.1 provides that: '…the Contractor

Bailment Bailment is the legal term where one person knowingly has possession of the goods of another. The legal relationship of bailor and bailee can exist independently of any contract, and is created by the voluntary taking into custody of goods which are the property of another, as in cases of sub-bailment or of bailment by finding. The element common to all types of bailment is the imposition of an obligation, because the taking of possession in the circumstances involves an assumption of responsibility for the safe keeping of the goods. A claim against a bailee can be regarded as a claim on its own, sui generis, arising out of the possession had by the bailee of the goods. The bailee has certain obligations

Whether a developer will face difficulties in applying for planning permission without an interest in the application site will depend on the landowner’s co-operation and how the parties structure their relationship. A developer wishing to develop land in third party ownership may submit an application speculatively or approach the relevant landowner in advance with a view to entering into an agreement to acquire or develop the land. Assuming the landowner is willing to engage, there are a variety of ways the parties may structure their arrangement. For example, they may enter into an option agreement or a sale contract that is conditional on the grant of a satisfactory permission. Other options include the developer undertaking to procure permission and develop the land on

The need for warranties In a share or asset purchase, there is no statutory or common law protection as to the assets and liabilities being acquired. The practice of building in robust warranties into any contract to protect a buyer is therefore commonplace, as are attempts by sellers to limit their liability under the warranties. One method of limiting liability under a warranty or representation is to qualify the knowledge which the seller is deemed to have within the transaction, on the basis that it cannot be expected to disclose matters which it does not know about. A buyer will, however, typically resist such qualification for the majority of warranties (unless the seller is a trustee, administrator or similar, or perhaps in an auction sale process heavily weighted towards the seller). Knowledge qualifiers Common examples of knowledge

This Q&A assumes that there is a commercial lease over industrial premises, and under which there is a restrictive covenant preventing the tenant from ‘sharing occupation of the premises or granting rights over the premises to a third party’. There is a proposed ‘agreement’ by which equipment (possibly vehicles) would be stored on the land. There are three ways that this could operate: by lease granting an interest in the land to a third party, by licence giving the third party permission to store equipment on the land, or by a contract by which the tenant will have custody of the equipment for a particular storage period. The creation of a lease would be in breach

An agreement for lease is a contract relating to the grant of a lease and is commonly used where there are various matters that need to be dealt with prior to the lease being entered into. These may include where the premises are not yet vacant or the prospective landlord has not completed on the purchase of the intended premises, or where works to existing premises or the construction of the intended premises are still being carried out. A unilateral notice is an entry at HM Land Registry intended to protect the rights of a third party; in this scenario the intended lessee. The purpose of such entries is to give notice of an interest so as to prevent that interest from being affected by a later disposition.

Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954) provides for statutory security of tenure for most business tenancies. As a result, a tenancy does not expire by effluxion of time but continues and either the landlord or the tenant can apply to the court for the grant of a new tenancy. The landlord can terminate the tenancy only through following the procedure as set out in LTA 1954. By LTA 1954, s 38, parties cannot contract out of its provisions, save as permitted by LTA 1954, s 38A. This allows that the parties can agree that LTA 1954, ss 24–28 do not apply, but such an agreement is void unless the landlord has served on the tenant a notice in or substantially in the form set out in the Regulatory Reform (Business Tenancies) (England and Wales) Order 2003 (RRO 2003), SI 2003/3096,

A deed of variation is an agreement between the lessor and the lessee to alter the terms of the lease. There are myriad reasons why a deed of variation might need to be entered into, which might include altering covenants, changing rent or service charge provisions, or inserting a break clause into a lease. A purported deed of variation which extends either the term of the lease or the extent of the demise operates at law as a surrender and re-grant of the lease (see Practice Note: Lease variations—surrender and re-grant issues). A lease operates as a contract between landlord and tenant. As a result they are able to vary the terms of the agreement

The starting point is that, in order to be valid, an assignment of existing copyright must be in writing and signed by or on behalf of the assignor under section 90 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA 1988). Prima facie, these are the only formalities necessary to give effect to a legal assignment of existing copyright. Under general English law, assignment of legal rights which do not yet subsist amounts to a 'contract to assign', which may suffice to show equitable but not legal ownership of the assignee. However, future copyright in works not yet in existence are capable of being assigned by agreement pursuant to CDPA 1988, s 91, contrary to the general rule. The formalities required for an effective assignment

Where an employee wants to cancel a pre-arranged period of holiday, in the absence of a contractual right to do so, they will need their employer’s agreement. The Working Time Regulations 1998 (WTR 1998), SI 1998/1833 do not give employees a statutory right to cancel a pre-arranged period of holiday, and it is unusual for holiday provisions in an employment contract, or a holiday policy, to allow for this. In most cases, therefore, it is likely to be down to the employer to decide whether or not to agree to the request. However, there are competing interests to consider, particularly in the context of coronavirus (COVID-19): on the one hand, an employee who has had a holiday cancelled because of coronavirus will want to save their holiday entitlement until such time as they are able to re-schedule

Breach of health and safety duties In relation to the health and safety of its employees, an employer may be found liable for a breach of: • the duty to take reasonable care for the health and safety of employees (in tort and in contract) • the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (HSWA 1974) Failure to take care of employees’ health and safety may also amount to a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, which may lead to constructive unfair dismissal claims. For further information, see: • Health and safety—overview • Practice Notes: ◦ Safety and the risk to safety under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 ◦ Failure to carry out health and safety duties under HSWA 1974—offences ◦ The term of trust

An employer is liable to pay statutory sick pay (SSP) to an employee in respect of a day of incapacity for work if: • the day forms part of a period of incapacity for work (PIW), ie a period of at least four consecutive days, each of which is a day of incapacity for work • the day falls within a period of entitlement • the day in question is a ‘qualifying day’, and • certain notification and evidence requirements are satisfied For further information, see Practice Note: Sick pay, in particular the sections headed SSP—eligibility and SSP—limit of entitlement. A day of incapacity for work is a day on which the employee concerned is incapable by reason of some specific disease or bodily or mental disablement of doing work which he can reasonably be expected to do under that contract. This would include a day on