This Q&A considers whether there is a right to partially terminate in the event of repudiatory breach in a business-to-business commercial contract in respect of which no specific industry or sector regulations apply. It does not cover frustration, mistake, rectification or severance of illegal or unfair terms. A party to any given contract will also have to consider whether a right to partial termination arises under any terms of the relevant contract on a true interpretation. For further information, see Practice Notes: Contract interpretation—the guiding principles and Rules of contract interpretation. See also Contract interpretation—overview and Practice Note: Ending a contract by agreement. For further information on express and implied terms, see Practice Note: Express and implied terms in contracts. You may also find it helpful to consider the commentary in Q&A: Is it possible to structure

The right to annual leave under the Working Time Regulations 1998, SI 1998/1833 (WTR 1998) is to a total of 5.6 weeks' leave each 'leave year', made up of: • a basic entitlement to a minimum of four weeks' annual leave (which equates to 20 days for a regular full-time worker) each leave year, implementing the right to annual leave under the Working Time Directive • an additional entitlement to 1.6 weeks' annual leave (which equates to eight days for a regular full-time worker) each leave year, which is a right under domestic legislation only Looking at the domestic legislation only (and leaving aside the effect of ECJ case law in relation to Working Time Directive), the WTR 1998, SI 1998/1833 clearly

This Q&A focusses on the situation where the statement made was oral. This considers libel and slander generally, rather than by reference to statements of a certain nature. The starting point is to determine the medium in which the statement was made or communicated. If the statement was spoken or oral, the correct cause of action would be slander. If the statement was written, the correct cause of action would be libel. At the outset, it should be noted that libel and slander proceedings are inherently fact sensitive, with liability hinging on the specific facts of the case. Under the common law, a statement was defamatory where it caused, or was likely to cause, a substantially adverse effect on the claimant’s reputation. However, section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 (DA 2013) requires that a statement have caused, or be likely to cause, serious reputational harm to the claimant

For the purposes of this Q&A, we have assumed there is a provision stating that an agreement may be executed in counterparts and that each signed counterpart is to be treated as an original in relation to a simple contract signed purely electronically. For information on a situation where a contract is being signed in hard copy and copies of the document are circulated electronically, you may find it useful to refer to Practice Note: Virtual execution of documents. This Q&A covers business-to-business contracts for services entered into by persons within England & Wales for (UK incorporated) companies based in the jurisdiction. For the purposes of this Q&A, it is assumed that no foreign or conflict of law issues apply and that the contracts and their formation are exclusively governed by English law and solely enforced in the English courts. Requirement

The term ‘litigant in person’ is the term used to describe individuals who exercise their right to conduct legal proceedings on their own behalf. See guidance Terminology for Litigants in Person. Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) do not set out the basis for communications between parties in general terms. Although CPR 6.7 makes provision for service on solicitors for the defendant where this has been notified, and CPR 6.23 provides for addresses for service to be provided and for documents to be served at that address, there are no provisions as to the contacting of other parties directly. The Bar Council, CILEx and the Law Society issued

Section R-ILRP, Appendix FM, the Immigration Rules sets out the settlement criteria on the five-year partner route. The requirements for settlement include that an application must be made when the applicant and their partner are in the UK (para R-ILRP.1.1(a), noting that where the sponsoring partner is a Crown Servant then there is provision for them to remain overseas, but the applicant partner still has to apply from within the UK). The eligibility criteria for settlement include a requirement that ‘the applicant must, at the date of application, have completed a period of continuous residence in the UK of at least five years (60 months) with leave as a partner’ (disregarding any time as a fiancé, para E-ILRP1.3). Time spent living outside the UK with leave as a partner can be counted towards the 60 months if the partner is living overseas with a Crown Servant (para E-ILRP.1.5). The general rules for leave

This Q&A considers whether or not a party will be entitled to rely upon facts included within a witness statement to prove certain matters, where those facts have not been included within the party’s statement of case. As a general rule, all material facts relied upon, ie those that are necessary to frame the cause of action and establish a party’s right to the remedy sought, must be pleaded if they are to be relied upon. A witness statement cannot simply cure any deficiencies within a party’s pleaded case.  In this scenario, the crux appears to be whether or not a party will be entitled to rely upon facts alleged within a witness statement, where the issues to which those facts pertain were not included within a party’s statement of case. While the requirement pursuant to the CPR for disclosure and the exchange of witness statements has arguably reduced the need

The answer to this question is found within the statutory scheme for planning control largely contained within the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990) (as amended). Generally speaking, planning permission is required for the development of land (TCPA 1990, s 57), although this may be a general permission given by a Development Order (TCPA 1990, s 60). Development may be the carrying out of works on/under/to the land (operational development) or the making of a material change of use of the land (TCPA 1990, s 55). In either case, the carrying out of development without the requisite planning permission is a breach of planning control as defined by TCPA 1990, s 171A. The structure referred to in this question may have involved either or both of these forms of

We refer you to the Practice Note: Party Wall works—notices, disputes and awards which covers the definitions of a party wall, a party fence wall, and a party structure, and discusses the property owners who are affected by the Party Wall Act 1996 (PWA 1996), which will affect the parties when considering the construction of a wall. We have not found anything which states that a minimum gap needs to be maintained between the boundaries, but PWA 1996 will need to be considered in the context of the facts

In short, no. The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (FTT(PC)) is a judicial body created by statute. Its powers therefore stem from statute and, as regards the regulation of proceedings before the FTT(PC), derive mainly for the Tribunal procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 (the Property Chamber Rules 2013), SI 2013/1169. The Property Chamber Rules 2013, SI 2013/1169, r 6 provides: ‘…(1) Subject to the provisions of the 2007 Act and any other enactment, the Tribunal may regulate its own procedure. (2) The Tribunal may give a direction in relation to the conduct or disposal of proceedings at any time, including a direction amending, suspending or setting aside an earlier direction. (3) In particular, and without restricting the general powers in paragraphs (1) and (2), the Tribunal may— … (d) permit or require a party or another person to provide or

Compulsory purchase is a Draconian power by which certain bodies can require the acquisition by them of privately owned land where it is expedient to do so and there is a compelling case in the public interest. Compulsory purchase is intended to be a last resort to secure the assembly of all the land that is required in order to carry out an intended project. Where land which is the subject of a compulsory purchase order has attached to it easements over other land (ie that land is the dominant land) then the acquisition

Section 38A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954) provides that: ‘(1) The persons who will be the landlord and the tenant in relation to a tenancy to be granted for a term of years certain which will be a tenancy to which this Part of this Act applies [ie. Pt. II] may agree that the provisions of sections 24 to 28 of this Act shall be excluded in relation to that tenancy… (3) An agreement under subsection (1) above shall be void unless— (a) the landlord has served on the tenant a notice in the form, or substantially in the form, set out in Schedule 1 to the Regulatory Reform (Business tenancies) (England and Wales) Order 2003 (RRO 2003, SI 2003/3096);