Refine By
Clear all filter
About 92526 results for "*"
On merger of freehold and leasehold titles, HM Land Registry does not automatically enter the benefit of easements affecting the leasehold title in the registered title of the reversionary interest but requires (paragraph 3.4 of HM Land Registry Practice Guide 26) an application to be made and provision of ‘satisfactory evidence that the easement subsists for the benefit of the reversionary estate’. What would amount to ‘satisfactory evidence’? The leasehold and freehold estates are co-extensive and the servient land is in third party ownership. What evidence might be required beyond the registration of the easement in favour of the leasehold estate?
Q&As
For there to be a merger of freehold and leasehold titles, the leasehold interest and the reversionary interest in a property must have come into common ownership (Burton v Barclay) of a person who holds those titles in the same capacity (Chambers v Kingham), and there is an intention to merge the two estates. That intention can be express (such as by a declaration of merger or non-merger in the transferring
On or about
GLOSSARY
On or about is used to indicate that a stated date is approximate rather than exact. In legal practice across England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, it commonly appears in contracts, pleadings, indictments and witness statements where the precise date of an event is uncertain, immaterial, or may reasonably vary.The phrase is generally not defined in statute, but its meaning has been clarified through case law and routine usage: it permits a reasonable margin of error around the specified date, provided no prejudice is caused to the other party. In criminal proceedings, “on or about” a given date allows the prosecution some flexibility where exact timing is unclear, while still giving the accused fair notice of the allegation. In civil litigation and transactional documents, it helps avoid technical breach where performance occurs slightly earlier or later than anticipated.Courts in all four jurisdictions interpret “on or about” in a similar, pragmatic way, focussing on context, materiality, and fairness rather than a fixed number of days either side of the stated date.
On sale of a property, the balance of £85,000.00 was transferred by the mortgagee in possession to the beneficiary of a £1,000 charge (they were the last charge on the Charges Register). Can the beneficiary retain the costs incurred in locating the party entitled to the remaining balance? Is there any case law on this area?
Q&As
A Charging Order only operates to secure the value of a judgment debt, see Practice Note: Charging orders—what are they and when to use them—CPR 73. The primary legislation applicable is the Charging Order Act 1979 (COA 1979). To satisfy the debt, a creditor can obtain an order for the sale of the debtor’s property which is subject to the charging order by issuing a claim for an order for sale under CPR 73.10C, see
On surrender of a lease on behalf of a tenant, it is agreed the tenant is not responsible for any repairing obligations but just to leave the property in a clean and tidy condition. There is a yield up clause in the surrender which states...' The Tenant surrenders and yields up to the Landlord with full title guarantee all its estate interest and rights in the property and the Landlord accepts the surrender. ' Does 'yield up' put specific responsibilities on the tenant for how they should return the property to the landlord?
Q&As
The purpose of a yield up clause is that the landlord requires the property back from the tenant in the physical condition that it should be in if the tenant has complied with its covenants, and without any additional cost to the landlord. When this is the case, the landlord will be able to quickly re-let the property without any undue loss of rental income. In general, therefore, yield up clauses cannot be viewed in isolation from other covenants contained within a lease. In the present
On termination of employment can a payment in lieu of accrued holiday be calculated on the basis of basic salary only?
Q&As
When a worker's employment terminates, they have a statutory entitlement to pay in lieu of accrued but untaken holiday from their final leave year. As to whether the payment in lieu can be calculated on the basis of basic salary only, this will depend on what provision is made in the employment contract (or other ‘relevant agreement’). The payment to be made in lieu of accrued unused holiday is: • the amount specified in a 'relevant agreement' covering this situation, or • if there is no relevant agreement, the
On termination, what are the tax consequences of an employee sacrificing amounts treated as taxable earnings, such as holiday pay or a contractual PILON, in return for an employer contribution into a pension scheme?
Q&As
In order to ascertain the taxation of a termination award, an employer is required to carry out a post-employment notice pay (PENP) calculation whenever it makes a ‘relevant termination award’ to an employee. This is a termination award, being a payment or benefit which is received, directly or indirectly, in consideration, in consequence of or otherwise in connection with the termination of a person’s employment, that is not a redundancy payment or an ‘approved contractual payment’ to the extent exempt under section 309 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (ITEPA 2003) (which is quite rare in practice). The PENP calculation in essence provides a theoretical threshold against which the actual termination award should be measured in order to ascertain any tax liability. If: • the PENP is equal to or greater than the entire termination award, the entire amount is treated as earnings and
On the 'debt issues' exemption for collective investment schemes, what amounts to an 'instrument creating or acknowledging indebtedness'?
Q&As
A collective investment scheme (CIS) is a form of investment fund and is defined in section 235 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. However, there are a number of exclusions available under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Promotion of Collective Investment Schemes) (Exemptions) Order 2001, SI 2001/1060, which includes debt issues. Exemptions for Debt issues are set out in full in Art 3, para 5 of the SCHEDULE (Arrangements Not Amounting to a Collective Investment Scheme) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Collective
On the acquisition of a private company with a SIP where the SIP trustees cannot dispose of the shares unless in the context of a ‘general offer’, is there any guidance on structuring the ‘general offer’ for these purposes?
Q&As
HMRC provides limited guidance on the features that an offer must have in order to be regarded as a ‘general offer’ in the context of the acquisition of a private company. In the context of a share incentive plan (SIP), HMRC states (in the example of a management buyout) that ‘shares held by participating managers may be subject to separate agreements’. Fuller HMRC guidance at ETASSUM35500 in the context of a save as you earn (SAYE) scheme states that: ‘There is no statutory definition of a ‘general offer’, so the phrase must be given its normal meaning—there must be an ‘offer’ and it must be ‘general’. These features will not be satisfied if the acquiring company obtains control by acquiring holdings of shares privately from selected shareholders, possibly at different times and at different prices. The essential features are that
On the acquisition of an interest in a 125-year lease out of a freehold title, is consent needed from the registered proprietor of the mortagor of the freehold title in order to charge the leasehold title?
Q&As
The response to this Q&A assumes that it relates to the purchase of the interest in a pre-existing lease. Before any leasehold land is charged, the wording of the lease should be checked to see if the consent of the landlord to charging is required. Even in the
On the assignment of a commercial lease, is the landlord entitled to insist on a rent deposit from the assignee as a condition of consenting to the assignment if this is not included as a pre-condition to assignment in the lease, although there is a provision allowing the landlord to require a guarantor if this is reasonable?
Q&As
LTA 1927 and LT(C)A 1995 Section 19 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 (LTA 1927) provides that whenever a lease contains a covenant against assigning, etc of the demised premises, without licence or consent, that covenant is deemed to be subject to a proviso to the effect that licence or consent is not to be unreasonably withheld. However, since 1996, the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 (LT(C)A 1995) has provided that the tenant of a new tenancy (broadly, one granted after 1 January 1996) with an automatic release from covenants when the lease is assigned. Accordingly, to mitigate the impact on landlords, LT(C)A 1995 introduced LTA 1927, s 19(1A) which permits the landlord and tenant to agree and specify:
On the cessation of a global order for maintenance, the parent with care made an application to the Child Maintenance Service (CMS) in relation to the child of the parties, who is age 16. The CMS have not been able to confirm an address for the non-resident parent, who is being uncooperative. If the non-resident parent does not pay maintenance via the CMS, can an application be under section 1 of the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates’ Courts Act 1978 on the grounds of failure to make reasonable provision for a child of the family?
Q&As
Section 1 of the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates’ Courts Act 1978 (DPMCA 1978) allows either party to a marriage to apply to the family court for an order under DPMCA 1978, s 2 on the ground that the other party to the marriage has failed to provide reasonable maintenance for the applicant, has failed to provide or to make a proper contribution towards reasonable maintenance for any child of the family, or has behaved in such a way that the applicant
On the conversion of a limited liability partnership (LLP) to a company by way of a transfer of the LLP's assets and liabilities to the company, what is the legal basis for the consideration being issued directly to the LLP members rather than to the transferring entity (the LLP)?
Q&As
There is a rule that ‘consideration must move from the promisee’ (in this case, the company acquiring the limited liability partnership (LLP's) assets). There is no corresponding requirement that consideration moves to the promisor (in this case, the LLP). This means the promisee (the company) may provide consideration by doing an act which does not result in any direct benefit to the promisor (the LLP). In this transaction, the two key