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, 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 A 'day of incapacity for work' means a day on which the relevant employee is (or in certain circumstances is deemed to be) incapable by reason of some specific disease or bodily or mental disablement of doing work which they can reasonably be expected to do under their contract of employment. Medical information required for the purpose of determining the employee’s

In this scenario, the transferee will need to consider: • whether there is a contractual right to make the proposed change to the employees’ place of work, and • whether such a variation is permitted under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE 2006), SI 2006/246 Contractual issues From a contractual point of view, the first step, having ascertained what the contractual terms are, is to establish whether the change envisaged by the employer: • is already permitted by those terms, or • may not affect the actual terms of the contract Assuming that it is necessary to vary the contractual terms, the next step is to establish whether the existing contractual terms have adequate inherent flexibility to enable the employer to introduce the proposed changes without having to amend the contracts of employment themselves. Where a change in employment arrangements involves a contractual change, common law requires that the employee (or, where terms are collectively bargained, recognised trade unions)

A bailment arises whenever one person (the bailee) is voluntarily in possession of goods belonging to another person (the bailor). For more commentary on when a bailment may arise, see commentary from Halsbury’s Laws of England on bailment: • Meaning of 'bailment': Halsbury's Laws of England [101] Bailment is a special type of transaction and a claim against a defaulting bailee may lie in contract, tort, or on the basis of the bailment itself. The principal torts which may be committed by a defaulting bailee who loses, damages or fails to return goods are negligence and conversion. Damages in such cases are awarded according to the specific rules which govern those torts. In each case, such damages are fundamentally compensatory, their object being to restore the bailor to the position which he would have occupied had the tort not been committed. For more

There are a number of different remedies which may be available to landowner A, which will depend upon the nature of the agreement in question. For example, if there was consideration in respect of the agreement, then landowner A could potentially bring a claim for breach of contract. It is also possible that a licence has been granted to landowner B, which has been exceeded and could be revoked. An option would be to bring a claim for trespass if applicable, or if the works are ongoing, a claim for nuisance. See Trespass—overview, Neighbour disputes—noise and nuisance and Nuisance—what are public and private nuisance claims? This will of course depend upon the nature

It is a long established principle of law that for an easement to exist, there must be both a dominant and servient tenement. This is often described as it being impossible for there to be an ‘easement in gross’. In the case of London & Blenheim Estates Ltd v Ladbroke Retail Parks Ltd, the Court of Appeal emphasised some general principles of the law on easements. The court specifically considered the question of whether an easement could be created where the dominant tenement concerned had yet to be specified. At page [37D] of the report, Peter Gibson LJ stated: ‘I see no reason to doubt that a contract to create a legal estate in favour of an unidentified person to be nominated by a contracting party

Section 86(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996), states: 'The notice required to be given by an employer to terminate the contract of employment of a person who has been continuously employed for one month or more— (a)    is not less than one week's notice if his period of continuous employment is less than two years, (b)    is not less than one week's notice for each year of continuous employment if his period of continuous employment is two years or more but less than twelve years, and (c)    is not less than twelve weeks' notice if his period of continuous employment is twelve years or more.' An ordinary reading of this provision would suggest that the period of continuous employment is to be assessed

In answering this Q&A we have limited our research to cover online purchases by consumers of bespoke items. For the purposes of this Q&A we have assumed that this question relates to online purchases by consumers of bespoke goods. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015) implies certain terms into any contract for the sale of goods, including those made with consumers. Under the CRA 2015: • goods must correspond with their description (CRA 2015, s 11) • goods must be of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose (CRA 2015 ss 9 and 10) • the transferor of goods must have the right to transfer title in them (CRA 2015, s 8) • where goods are transferred by reference to a sample, that they must correspond with the sample Quality is judged by the following factors (CRA 2015, s 9(3)): • fitness for all the purposes for

Where a force majeure clause lists specific events, whether a court would consider this as indicative of the type of event constituting force majeure will largely depend on an interpretation of the particular clause, having regard to the contract as a whole and the circumstances and matters that the parties would be expected to be concerned about. Force majeure TThe term ‘force majeure’ is not a technical term with its own clearly defined meaning under English law. The courts have sought, through their decisions on individual cases, to give guidance as to what in specific circumstances are and are not covered by the term. However, there remains no general definition. The term force majeure has been held in Lebeaupin v Crispin to go beyond what the courts understand by the terms, 'act of God' or 'vis major'.

When an assured shorthold tenant dies, Section 1(1)(b) of the Housing Act 1988 (‘the 1988 Act’) is no longer satisfied as the tenant no longer occupies the dwelling as their only or principal home. This results in the tenancy continuing (unless terminated by Notice to Quit) until the end of the fixed term as a common law contractual tenancy. As a matter of contract, rent already owing remains payable and an implied term requires that rent due until the end of the term remains payable too (Youngmin v Heath). Usually any rent due is sought from the personal representatives (ie executors if there was a Will; administrators if not) of a deceased as they are bound to perform all contracts entered into by the deceased

In answering this Q&A, it is assumed that the tenancy in question is a residential tenancy, rather than a commercial lease. It is further assumed that the nature of the residential tenancy is an assured shorthold tenancy. Such a tenancy amounts to a contract at common law, but is also subject to various statutory enactments, including the Housing Act 1988 (HA 1988) and the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 (PEA 1977). A fixed-term tenancy cannot be terminated at common law by either party unless there is a break clause or surrender is accepted by the landlord. A tenant seeking to terminate a fixed-term tenancy early will still be liable to pay the rent due

Arbitration clauses and agreements provide for disputes to be dealt with by an appointed arbitral tribunal and can arise in both domestic and international contexts. For more information on arbitration agreements, see the following Practice Notes: • Arbitration agreements—definition, purpose and interpretation • Arbitration agreements—the in writing requirement • Arbitration agreements—content • Arbitration agreements—requirements of the New York Convention • Will my arbitration agreement be upheld? • Arbitration agreements—the doctrine of separability (England and Wales) Example of a domestic arbitration clause—Chartered Institute of Arbitrators The following is a simple model arbitration clause recommended by the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb): ‘Any dispute or difference arising out of or in connection with this contract shall be determined by the appointment of a single arbitrator to be agreed between the parties, or failing agreement within fourteen days, after either party

Transfer of Undertaking (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE 2006), SI 2006/246, reg 4(7) is the statutory successor to regulation 5(4A) of the TUPE Regulations 1981. Regulation 5(4A) was inserted into the TUPE Regulations 1981 to expressly encapsulate the decision of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Katsikas v Konstantinidis that an employee cannot be compelled to join a new employer as a result of a TUPE transfer. An employee has an absolute right to object to a transfer. If that right is exercised then the employee’s employment comes to an end by operation of law, such that the employee has no right to notice pay and cannot claim unfair dismissal etc. The current regulation 4(7) provides that: ‘Paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not operate to transfer the contract of employment and the rights, powers, duties and liabilities under or in connection with it of an employee who informs the transferor or the