For the purposes of this Q&A we have assumed that the tenant has been demised the whole building. In Cumberland Consolidated Holdings v Ireland, the court held that the test for vacant possession was whether what was left behind was an impediment which substantially prevented or interfered with the enjoyment of a substantial part of the premises. The cellars under a warehouse were unusable as they contained rubbish, including numerous sacks of hardened cement. Consequently, the tenant had not given vacant possession. In NYK Logistics (UK) v Ibrend Estates, the Court of Appeal held that NYK had not given vacant possession in relation to a break condition. The concept of vacant possession meant that the property should be empty of people and that the buyer must be able to assume and enjoy immediate and exclusive possession, occupation and control of it. It must

In the case of an express grant of a right of way the extent of the right granted depends on the express terms of the grant. The words used in a grant of a right of way are to be construed in accordance with the normal principles of construction as set out in cases such as Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich BS and Attorney General of Belize v Belize Telecom Ltd. In summary what the court would be looking at in construing a grant is: • the ascertainment of the meaning that the words used would convey to a reasonable person having all the background knowledge which would have been available to the parties at the time of execution of the grant • the documentary, factual and commercial context of the words • the natural and ordinary meaning of the provision; and other

Reasonable travel costs incurred in attending treatment sessions or medical appointments are recoverable. In addition, courts will sometimes award a modest sum in respect of any minor personal costs arising as a result of the accident and in bringing the action (for example, postage and telephone calls).

The leading authority on the issue of loss of inheritance in Fatal Accidents Act 1976 (FAA 1976) claims is the decision of the High Court in Adsett v West. The underlying rule is that there is no difference in principle in FAA 1976 claims between a loss of income and a loss of inheritance either when dealing with the source of the money from which the deceased would have provided a periodic income to dependants or when dealing with sums that would otherwise have been available

When determining what damages an employer may claim, it is necessary to consider general principles regarding damages. As set out in Practice Note: Quantum in construction claims, the normal function of damages for breach of contract is compensatory—the aim is to compensate the loss suffered by the claimant and place it in the same position, so far as money can do so, as it would have been in had the contract been performed. The extent to which a type of loss, such as loss of profits, may be recoverable is primarily governed by the concepts of causation and remoteness (although other factors, such as whether the claimant has mitigated its loss, will also be relevant). Accordingly, a claimant must first show: • there is a causal link between the breach (eg the defect) and the loss suffered

Although pre-procurement engagement with the market is not a new feature of public procurement, the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, SI 2015/102 (PCR 2015) for the first time expressly recognise it in legislation and provide guidance on its operation. SI 2015/102, reg 40(2) states that before commencing a public tender process, a contracting authority may ‘seek or accept advice from independent experts or authorities or from market participants'. The use of such advice must not result in a distortion of competition or in a breach of the principles of non-discrimination and transparency. If a party which provided such advice later participates in the tender process, the contracting authority must take ‘appropriate measures’ to ensure that competition is not distorted, which can include the sharing with other tenderers of all relevant information exchanged in the course of pre-procurement dialogue, and it must ensure that adequate time limits are fixed

The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER 1998), SI 1998/2306 apply to work equipment used by an employee when working at home. A bookshelf used to store work-related materials may be classified as work equipment. Hence, an employer may be under an obligation to conduct a Risk Assessment and to ensure that the bookshelf was maintained in good repair and that it was suitable for the purpose for which it was provided. Contributory negligence may need to be considered if the claimant built the bookshelf incorrectly, was aware that it was unstable before the accident or failed to attach it to the wall. PUWER 1998, SI 1998/2306, reg 3(2) defines the application of PUWER 1998 to cover ‘equipment provided for use or used by an employee of [the employer] at work’. The definition is, plainly, wide enough to cover equipment used

Force majeure is used to describe an event that occurs which is beyond the control of the parties, and which prevents them from fulfilling their contractual obligations. Although the NEC contracts do not use the term ‘force majeure’, they refer to comparable types of event—see Practice Note: Force majeure in construction contracts. We assume that the contract includes a Z clause providing for a definition of ‘force majeure’ which includes

A planning obligation made under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990) is, by virtue of TCPA 1990, s 106(1) enforceable to the extent mentioned in TCPA 1990, s 106(3). TCPA 1990, s 106(3) provides that a planning obligation is enforceable by the local planning authority (LPA): • against the person entering into

This Q&A is limited to the consideration of avoiding discrimination in the provision of goods, services and facilities under the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010). In conducting our research, we have focused on cases arising under the EqA 2010. We have not extended our search for cases under any equivalent law in the preceding Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA 1995). Reasonable adjustments Practice Note: Equality Act 2010—discrimination in the provision of goods, services and facilities explains the protected characteristics that are covered by the EqA 2010, see the section entitled Equality Act 2010—discrimination in the provision of goods, services and facilities—Protected characteristics and goes on to describe the types of discrimination which might occur due to failure to accommodate for persons with the protected characteristics (see section entitled Equality Act 2010—discrimination in the provision of goods, services and facilities, and following which contains some illustrative examples). Due to EqA 2010,

Introduction Class A of Part 4 Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (GDPO 2015), SI 2015/596 affords temporary planning permission via permitted development rights for: 'The provision on land of buildings, moveable structures, works, plant or machinery required temporarily in connection with and for the duration of operations being or to be carried out on, in, under or over that land or on land adjoining that land.' Exemptions to permitted development under Class A are set out at Paragraph A.1. Development is not permitted where the structure is erected, albeit temporarily, in connection to operations which either are mining operations, or where there is an unfulfilled requirement for planning permission for those operations. Class

This Q&A refers to ICO guidance on public authorities under the Environment Information Regulations 2004, SI 2004/3391 (EIR 2004). In addition to the cases mentioned in scenario described, the case of Cross v IC is relevant and provides discussion of the Fish Legal v Information Commissioner decision. In Cross, the court held that the Sovereign does not fall within the EIR 2004, SI 2004/3391, reg 2(2) as it cannot be considered an administrative authority, a person entrusted with the performance of services of public