This Practice Note sets out the various options available to a landlord in recovering rent arrears and the factors to be considered before any action is taken. It covers the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, debt recovery (by court proceedings), use of a rent deposit, service of statutory demands prior to bankruptcy or winding up proceedings, pursuing former or sub tenants or guarantors, notices under section 17 of the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995, Commercial Rent Arrears Recovery (CRAR) and the impact of insolvency on recovering rent arrears. Before taking any action to recover rent arrears, landlords must consider: • whether to forfeit the lease for non-payment • whether the tenant is in any form of insolvency and, if so, what implications this has for the methods of recovery available • whether there are any limitation period issues. No action may be taken to recover rent arrears after the expiry of six years from the date on which the arrears became due Forfeiture must be considered first as any demand for or acceptance of

This Checklist sets out the key issues to consider when dealing with the payment or recovery of retention monies. It assumes that the contract is subject to the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 HGCRA 1996 and primarily refers to employer–contractor retention monies, although the same issues also apply to contractor–sub-contractor retention monies. See Practice Note: Retention of payment in construction contracts for an explanation of retention, when it is usually paid, and the way retention is dealt with under JCT and NEC contracts. Note that significant changes are imminent with the UK government’s intention to prohibit the use of any retention practices in construction contracts. In May 2026, it was confirmed in the King’s Speech that the legislative agenda included the tackling of late payments through the Small Business Protections (Late Payments) Bill. Now re-named as the Commercial Payments Bill, this has been introduced by the House of Lords. This new legislation aims to apply a range of protective measures and financial penalties to address the damage caused to smaller businesses by the withholding of payment by larger

This Practice Note looks at how a landlord can recover the costs of taking action to enforce tenant covenants, such as seeking rent arrears, serving a notice under section 146 of the Law of Property Act 1925, or seeking a determination of service charge liability. It looks at the effect of common lease clauses requiring tenants to pay costs, and the power for the court or tribunal to order that the landlord’s costs of proceedings may not be recovered as service charges under section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA 1985), or as administration charges under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (CLRA 2002). Options for cost recovery There are various routes to recovering costs that a landlord may use depending on the circumstances. These include: • costs orders in proceedings. See: Costs orders—overview and First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal—overview • statutory liability for costs imposed in certain situations, such as in a claim for a lease extension or for collective enfranchisement. Reference should be made to the guidance for the relevant process—for

This Practice Note outlines the process for recovery of NHS charges including how to apply for a certificate, pay NHS charges and seek a review of or appeal a certificate of NHS charges. It also considers the procedure in cases involving contributory negligence and multiple compensators. When a claimant is successful in claiming compensation as a result of an accident, the NHS is entitled to recover an amount to cover the cost of the claimant’s NHS hospital treatment and any ambulance costs. Recovery of these NHS charges falls to the Compensation Recovery Unit (CRU), which will in turn refund the charges to the relevant hospital or ambulance service. The aim is that the funds recovered by the CRU under the scheme go directly to the NHS and/or ambulance trust which provided the treatment or service for reinvestment back into patient services. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) specifically directs that the funds recovered are not to be viewed as additional funding but the recovery of resources already expended. Part 3 of the Health and

This Practice Note considers recovery of liability expenses insurance premiums generally. For an introduction to before the event (BTE) insurance and after the event (ATE) insurance (costs insurance), see Practice Note: Costs insurance. The rules that apply to the recovery of ATE insurance premiums in relation to mesothelioma and clinical negligence claims are beyond the scope of this Practice Note. Recoverability of the cost of liability expenses insurance premiums The recovery of insurance premiums as costs from the other side depends on the type of insurance policy and when the policy was entered into. BTE insurance Premiums payable in respect of a BTE insurance policies (policies instituted before an event giving rise to a claim) are never recoverable. ATE insurance Where an insurance policy is taken out against the risk of incurring liability in proceedings, the position is as follows: • in respect of ATE policies taken out before 1 April 2013, the premium is recoverable • in respect of ATE policies taken out on or after 1 April 2013, the general rule is that the premium

In the vast majority of Scottish criminal cases, the recovery of evidence by an accused’s representatives will be by means of disclosure made by the Crown in terms of their obligations under the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 (CJL(S)A 2010). For information relating to such evidence, see Practice Note: Disclosure of evidence in Scottish criminal proceedings. There may, however, be cases where information is required which is held by the Crown and not subject to their statutory disclosure obligations. There may also be cases in which information is required which is in the hands of a third party. This Practice Note explains how such evidence may be obtained. Evidence held by the Crown As stated above, in the vast majority of cases, the recovery of evidence held by the Crown is done so in terms of the Crown’s obligations contained in CJL(S)A 2010, Pt 6. There may, however, be instances where the recovery of evidence is required and it does not come under the terms of CJL(S)A 2010. The first

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The court accepted in relation to various payments made by the company that the interests of creditors were engaged at an early stage; the company’s apparent solvency was dependent on the inclusion in its accounts of several debts which were either illusory or irrecoverable. The consequential adjustment to the accounts had the effect of rendering the dividend payments unlawful as the accounts were not statute-compliant and there were no distributable profits. The court further accepted the submission that it was for the directors, as fiduciaries with an obligation to account, to establish the validity of each of the impugned transactions, not for the claimant to prove that they were unlawful. Finally, the court considered but rejected the defendant directors’ limitation defences, including the related issue of the attribution to the company of the directors’ knowledge of their own wrongdoing. Written by Bridget Williamson, barrister at Enterprise Chambers.

Chapter 3A (sections 303B–303Z) of Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002) provides for the seizure, detention and forfeiture of certain valuable items of personal property in summary proceedings (also known as the detention and forfeiture of listed assets). For the purposes of this Practice Note, this will be described as the recovery of listed assets regime. When it came into force on 16 April 2018, the recovery of listed assets regime marked a significant extension to existing seizure and forfeiture powers under POCA 2002. Related powers under PACE 1984 and POCA 2002 to seize personal property Related powers in civil proceedings under POCA 2002, Pt 5 POCA 2002, Pt 5 provides the framework for different types of civil recovery into which the recovery of listed assets regime slots. It includes: • POCA 2002, ss 243–288 (Part 5, Chapter 2), which concerns civil recovery of money by the High Court and contains further powers to freeze and detain property which may overlap with the listed assets regime. For detailed information on civil

This Practice Note covers the Compensation Recovery Unit (CRU) system for reclaiming lump sum payments made to a claimant under the Pneumoconiosis etc (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979 (P(WC)A 1979), the 2008 Diffuse Mesothelioma Scheme and the 2014 Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme. It outlines rules on repayment of the lump sum, offsetting the lump sum and payments that are exempt from the recovery system. It also considers the procedures for cases involving multiple compensators, interim payments and periodical payments. For guidance on how to apply for a CRU certificate and on challenging a certificate, see Practice Note: CRU certificates—recoverable benefits and lump sum payments. General Practitioners should note that the treatment of lump sum payments made under certain schemes relating specifically to cases of respiratory disease differs from that in respect of state benefits received, where damages are awarded in civil claims. The three schemes are: • P(WC)A 1979 • the 2008 Diffuse Mesothelioma Scheme • the 2014 Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme (DMPS) For further guidance on the above compensation

This Practice Note explains the system for recovering social security benefits paid to claimants as a result of an accident, injury or disease. It outlines how the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) recovers these benefits from the compensator via the Compensation Recovery Unit (CRU). It sets out In which circumstances the compensator may be entitled to recoup certain benefits against specific heads of loss to prevent double recovery. It also explains the procedural process in cases involving contributory negligence, multiple compensators, interim payments and periodical payments. The recovery system A claimant may receive state benefits following an accident, injury or disease. The DWP operates a statutory scheme to recover these benefits from the compensator (either the defendant or, in most cases, the defendant’s insurer) via the CRU. A compensator who makes a compensation payment in any case is liable to pay an amount equal to the total amount of the recoverable benefits. The compensator is in turn entitled to recoup certain benefits against three types of loss: • loss of earnings

Boilerplate provisions in public sector contracts This Practice Note looks at recovery of ‘sums due’ clauses in public sector contracts. For more information on what contracting authorities (and other interested parties) need to know when using boilerplate provisions in public sector agreements, see Practice Note: Boilerplate provisions in public sector agreements: general considerations. Public procurement reform As of 24 February 2025, the main provisions of the Procurement Act 2023 (PA 2023) are in force. Procurements begun on or after this date must be carried out under PA 2023. The existing public procurement rules (including the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR 2015) and Procurement Practice Notes (PPNs), Utilities Contracts Regulations 2016, Concession Contracts Regulations 2016, and Defence and Security Public Contracts Regulations 2011) and/or those governed by other statute(s) (such as health care procurements) continue to apply to procurements already commenced when the PA 2023 regime entered into force. Procurements starting after the entry into force of PA 2023 must be conducted by reference to PA 2023 only. Procurements commenced

Dispute Resolution analysis: Mr Parr and Mr and Mrs Ward were the three shareholders and directors of Keystone Healthcare Ltd (the company or Keystone). Mr Parr acted fraudulently as against the company in various respects so as to receive certain payments. He then sold his shares at their full value to the other shareholders who used a further corporate vehicle, Keystone Healthcare Holdings Ltd (Holdings), to acquire them. Upon discovery of Mr Parr’s frauds, Keystone sought to recover 50% of the price which had been paid to Mr Parr for his shares pursuant to ‘bad leaver’ provisions. The court below found for the company. Mr Parr appealed on the basis that the loss was that of Holdings which had paid for the shares, and not Keystone. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, providing useful commentary on the remedies for breach of fiduciary duty as well as postscript comments on the appropriate citation of authorities. Written by Charles Joseph, barrister at Tanfield Chambers.