This Practice Note compares key terms of the Loan Market Association (LMA) intercreditor agreement for leveraged acquisition finance transactions (senior/mezzanine) (the LMA Leveraged Intercreditor Agreement), the LMA intercreditor agreement for real estate finance transactions (senior/mezzanine) where the mezzanine debt has been structurally subordinated (the LMA REF Intercreditor Agreement—Structural Subordination) and the LMA intercreditor agreement for real estate finance transactions (senior mezzanine) where the mezzanine debt is not structurally subordinated but subject to contractual subordination in the intercreditor agreement only (the LMA REF Intercreditor Agreement—Contractual Subordination only) (together the Intercreditor Agreements). For more information in relation to the principles of subordination and the key provisions of intercreditor agreements in general, see Practice Notes: Subordination and Intercreditor agreement—key provisions. The LMA leveraged and REF intercreditor agreements The LMA Leveraged Intercreditor Agreement The LMA Leveraged Intercreditor Agreement was the first of the LMA intercreditor agreements to be published and is suitable for adaptation to different kinds of transactions. Prior to

A rentcharge is a method of securing a regular payment due to a third party in respect of land other than a payment by way of rent under a lease or other interest. A rentcharge is distinct from, but similar to, a ground rent or service charge payment in a lease. The Rentcharges Act 1977 (RA 1977) abolished new rentcharges, subject to limited exceptions, and provided for the extinguishment of most existing rentcharges by 2037. One of the retained

For the purposes of this response, it is assumed that the application for a divorce was made on or after 6 April 2022. Where a conditional order has been made in divorce proceedings, it is possible for a respondent to apply on notice adopting the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, Pt 18 procedure for a final order after the expiration of three months from the earliest date on which the applicant could have applied (section 9(2) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973); FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, 7.20). When considering

Under the EU Maintenance Regulation (EC) No 4/2009, where the parties did not have a sufficient connection to England and Wales it was potentially possible to found an application under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 under the forum of necessity (forum necessitas) provided for in EU Maintenance Regulation, art 7. This will now only potentially be available in transitional cases, where the proceedings were issued prior to implementation period (IP) completion day (ie 11 pm on 31 December 2020) and are subject to the provisions set out in the Jurisdiction and Judgments (Family) (Amendment etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (the 2019 Regulations), SI 2019/519, reg 8 (as amended) and the EU Maintenance

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: The parties to a claim for unlawful detention agreed damages in the sum of £16,000. This was a sum higher than four Part 36 offers previously made by the claimant. The parties submitted a consent order recognising the agreed quantum in full and final settlement. The issue of costs was not agreed. The court held that the usual cost consequences in CPR 36.17 applied. The true effect of the consent order was to enter judgment in favour of the claimant. It was immaterial that the Order did not use the word ‘judgment’, that the order was agreed by way of settlement, or that there had not been a trial resulting in a judgment by a court. Written by Kyran Kanda, barrister at St Philips Chambers.

A and B have agreed, and that agreement is reflected in a consent order, that the legal title in a jointly held property will be transferred from A and B to A alone although both A and B will remain mortgagors. If B refuses to comply with the order the steps which A can take to enforce the order will depend on the form of the order. It the order is in conventional form and provides that the property be transferred from the joint names of A and B into the sole name of

When the conservatory was constructed is an important consideration. Private sewers and lateral drains that were connected to the public sewer before 1 July 2011 were transferred on 1 October 2011 to sewerage undertakers. It is common to find conservatories and other extensions constructed less than 3 metres from a public sewer that was not a public sewer at the time the conservatory/extension was constructed, but was instead a private sewer the responsibility of the homeowner. If the conservatory was constructed prior to 1 July 2011, then it will have required express planning permission or permitted development rights, and it may have required building regulations approval. It would not have required a build over agreement from the sewerage undertaker if the sewer was private. Under Part H4 of Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations 2010, SI 2010/2214, the consent of the sewerage undertaker is required for building works over

Local Government analysis: This High Court decision further clarifies what constitutes beneficial occupation for the purposes of non-domestic rating. The ratepayer was intermittently using a large empty building for fairly minimal storage with the intention of mitigating its liability to unoccupied non-domestic rates on the basis of a scheme first considered in R (Makro Properties Ltd) v Nuneaton & Bedworth BC. The Council was arguing that the minimal storage use of potentially redundant items was not of value to the occupier and so did not meet the third test or ‘ingredient’ of rateable occupation. That argument was rejected by the court: slight use coupled with an intention to occupy is sufficient to constitute rateable occupation. Further, the required intention to occupy is necessarily present in a ratepayer seeking to mitigate its liability by intermittent occupation. Written by Jenny Wigley QC at Landmark Chambers.

Where the identity of the contracting parties is disputed, the court will disregard the parties’ subjective beliefs and consider what a reasonable person would conclude. The question of who were the parties to a contract is to be determined by an objective test: it turns on what a reasonable person would conclude, if furnished with the relevant information and disregarding the parties’ private thoughts. Where the issue is whether a person signing a document did so as agent for a company

The rights under a manufacturer’s guarantee are separate to and in addition to the rights in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015). A consumer does not have to avail themselves of the remedies under a manufacturer’s guarantee and if it has expired, they still have their rights against the retailer under CRA 2015. For guidance on this issue, see section Guarantees and extended warranty insurance in Practice Note: Consumer Rights Act 2015—summary—Goods. Under CRA 2015, s 23, if the customer no longer has the right to reject the goods because the 30-day period has expired, they can ask the trader

A deposit serves two purposes: • security for the performance of the contract • part payment of the purchase price if the sale completes If the deposit is held as stakeholder, the stakeholder can only pay the deposit to the person rightfully entitled to it, ie the seller on completion.

When is notice given? Notice of dismissal can generally only be effective if and when received by the employee, ie the dismissal must be communicated in order to be effective. In the absence of an express contractual provision to the contrary, when an employer sends notice of dismissal to an employee by post to the home address, the notice period starts to run when the employee,