Section 30(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954) sets out various grounds of opposition to the renewal of a business lease. Unless the landlord can establish one or more of these grounds, the tenant will be entitled to a new tenancy. For more information in respect of the grounds of opposition see Practice Note: Summary of landlord's grounds of opposition. In respect of which grounds to specify, different grounds have different requirements as to when intention and/or the factual situation in respect of the ground of opposition will be considered. The decision of the House of Lords in Betty's Cafés v Phillips Furniture Stores Ltd establishes that the existence of an intention for the purposes of grounds (f) and (g) must be established

A licence is a personal permission by a licensor to a licensee to occupy property. It is fundamentally different from a tenancy agreement, which is an interest in land. For the purposes of this Q&A, we assume that the arrangement is a licence and not a tenancy. However, even if the document is termed a licence it might still be a tenancy if the trader has exclusive possession and there are

We have assumed for the purposes of this Q&A that the compulsory purchase order (CPO) is subject to the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 (ALA 1981). ALA 1981, s 15(1) and (3) provide that after a CPO has been made, the acquiring authority must serve a confirmation notice on interested parties, and affix a copy of such notice on or near the land comprised in the CPO. The confirmation notice must also be published in one or more local newspapers circulating in the locality, see Practice Note: Promoting a compulsory

The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 (H(FHH)A 2018) came into force on 20 March 2019 and applies to all assured shorthold tenancies (ASTs) granted on or after 20 March 2019 and will apply to all ASTs after 20 March 2020. The effect of H(FHH)A 2018 is that the property must be fit for human habitation at the start of the term and

Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954) provides for security of tenure in respect of business premises that fall within its ambit. lta 1954 continues a qualifying business tenancy past the date which, but for LTA 1954, it would have expired by effluxion of time. The tenancy can be brought to an end by notice served by either the landlord or the tenant (under LTA 1954, s 25 and LTA 1954, s 27 respectively) and either party may apply to the court for the grant of a new tenancy. LTA 1954, s 26 provides that a tenant may make a request for a new tenancy in the prescribed form and must be

Case study: ‘An ex- council house, bought in 1993 under the right to buy contained in the Housing Act 1985, is subject to standard restrictive covenants contained in the 1993 transfer which are protected by a notice in the charges register and reads 'a transfer…dated…1993…between X and Y contains restrictive covenants (original filed)’. The 1993 transfer contains this provision: ‘The Property is sold subject to the restrictive covenants (if any) contained in a conveyance dated 15 August 1951’. The 1951 conveyance is not referred to in the charges register independently of the 1993 transfer. On sale of the house, are the 1951 covenants unenforceable as they are not separately noted on the title, or are they enforceable by virtue of their mention via the 1993 transfer which is protected by a notice? If the seller cannot

There are two main types of shareholder resolution: 'ordinary' and 'special'. There are also specific ordinary resolutions which require 'special notice'. In addition it is possible for a company's articles of association to require that certain resolutions are passed with a specific majority or unanimity. See Practice Note: Member resolutions, for further information, in particular the section entitled ‘Special resolutions’. Subject to any bespoke provisions of the articles of association, there appears to be no specific provision under Part 13 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) requiring a particular background template for a special resolution of a private company. Indeed there is significant flexibility in relation

Overreaching Broadly, the doctrine of overreaching enables purchasers (which includes tenants and mortgagees) in good faith for money or money's worth to rely solely on the legal title. A buyer of a legal estate in land from trustees will not be affected by any of the trusts on which the land is held if the purchase price is paid to all the trustees (of whom there must be at least two) or to a trust corporation. Payment of the price in this manner means that the interests of the beneficiaries are said to be 'overreached'. This is commonly known as the 'two trustee' rule. For guidance on overreaching, see Practice Notes: Overreaching—sales by trustees of land and Death of a proprietor of land—sale of property

Registration In relation to registration, the execution of a legal document via electronic means is acceptable in some circumstances; see Law Society Practice Note: Execution of a document using an electronic signature. This is a useful tool for lawyers now, particularly where parties to a transaction are unable to physically be in the same place to sign. The introduction of electronic signatures stems from the implementation of EU Regulation No 910/2014 (the eIDAS Regulation) which came into effect from 1 July 2016. The Electronic Communications Act 2000 (ECA 2000) came into force in the UK in July 2000, and allows contracts to be concluded by electronic means. It provides for the admissibility of electronic signatures in legal proceedings where the authenticity or integrity of that electronic communication is in question (ECA 2000, s 7(1)). This means that a person can validly 'sign' a document without the need for a 'wet ink' signature. ECA 2000, s 8 provides for the UK government to modify by statutory instrument

This Q&A assumes that the trustee in this case is an insolvency practitioner and not an official receiver. The annulment of a bankruptcy order effectively cancels the original bankruptcy order—it is as if the bankruptcy order was never made. For further reading, see: Annulments of bankruptcy orders—overview. There are three grounds on which the court can make an order annulling a bankruptcy order: • if it appears to the court that, on any grounds existing when the bankruptcy order was made, the order ought not to have been made (section 282(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986)) • if it appears to the court that, to the extent required by the rules, the bankruptcy debts and the expenses of the bankruptcy have all, since the making of the bankruptcy order, been either paid or secured to the satisfaction of the court (IA 1986, s 282(1)(b)) • where an undischarged bankrupt enters into an individual voluntary arrangement (IVA) with their creditors

When answering this question the starting point is the case of North Western Health Board v McKenna. This is a European Court of Justice decision in relation to a claim brought by Ms McKenna, who was employed by the NWHB in the Republic of Ireland. The ECJ was essentially asked to consider (amongst other things) whether, in relation to European law, it was lawful to treat pregnancy-related illness in the same way as other forms of sickness for the purpose of sick pay entitlement. The court held that European law does not require the maintenance of full pay for a female worker who is absent during her pregnancy by reason of an illness related to that pregnancy, and that a rule of a sick leave scheme which provides for a reduction in pay where the absence exceeds a certain duration as regards both female workers absent prior to maternity leave by reason of an

For information about maternity leave, generally, see Practice Note: Maternity leave. After a period of ordinary maternity leave (OML) or additional maternity leave (AML), the employee has a right to return to work. The right is to return at the end of the AML, if no earlier date of return has been notified, or to return on a date duly notified to the employer as the employee's intended date of return (Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999 (MAPLE 1999), SI 1999/3312, regs 18, 18A). The employee is not required to give notice of her intention to return if she takes the full period of her maternity leave entitlement. Notice requirements apply if the employee wishes to return early (MAPLE 1999, SI 1999/3312, reg 11). See Practice Note: Maternity leave, in particular the main section dealing with ‘Right to return to work after