This Practice Note considers the landlord’s obligation to repair under common law, how that is usually modified in repairing clauses found in full repairing and insuring (FRI) commercial leases in Scotland, issues to consider when drafting and interpreting such clauses, and the use of a schedule of condition in agreeing the tenant’s repairing obligations under the lease. The Practice Note does not consider residential or agricultural leases. In relation to agricultural leases, see Practice Notes: Buildings and other fixed equipment in agricultural tenancies in Scotland, Improvements and fixtures—agricultural tenants—Scotland and Buildings and other fixed equipment in agricultural tenancies in Scotland. In relation to disputes that may arise regarding repairs or dilapidations, see Practice Note: Repair and dilapidation disputes—commercial leases in Scotland. Repair under the common law At common law, a landlord, in comparison to a tenant, has quite onerous obligations in so far as the maintenance and repair of a let property is concerned. The landlord's principal obligations are: • to provide the tenant with premises which are reasonably fit for their

At common law a landlord, in comparison to a tenant, has quite onerous obligations in so far as the maintenance and repair of a let premises is concerned, see Practice Note: Repair clauses in commercial leases in Scotland—Repair under the common law. In commercial leases, it is almost universal practice for the landlord to seek to divest itself of all common law repairing obligations in relation to the premises let to the tenant (but not the common parts in multi-let buildings, see Practice Note: Service charge and outgoing provisions in commercial leases in Scotland). As such, commercial leases typically impose significant repairing obligations on the tenant. The most common form of commercial lease is a full repairing and insuring (FRI) lease where the tenant is responsible for all repairs of whatever nature with the exception of insured risk damage, see Practice Note: Repair clauses in commercial leases in Scotland—Contracting out of the common law—the full repairing and insuring (FRI) Lease and The modern commercial lease: Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia [466]. Survey A

Definitions (General) Competent Authority • any authority having jurisdiction in relation to the Property, its occupation or use; Restricted Period • any period [exceeding [number] [continuous] weeks]

Repatriation cases Repatriation cases are those where modifications apply to the process used under the Extradition Act 2003 (EA 2003) for extraditing a person on the basis that they have been convicted of an offence in one territory (the convicting territory), repatriated to another territory to serve their sentence (the imprisoning territory), and have then escaped. It is premised in the principle that the person concerned was serving their sentence in pursuance of international arrangements for prisoners sentenced in one territory to be repatriated to another

This Practice Note provides practical guidance on the repayment investigations by the UK’s Trade Remedies Authority (TRA) of anti-dumping duties and countervailing measures. Introduction Anti-dumping duties and countervailing measures are additional duties which are imposed on the imports of dumped and subsidised goods respectively. These duties are imposed on importation of the dumped or subsidised goods, as the case may be. When the anti-dumping duties or countervailing measures are paid at the border, situations may arise where the importer is of the view that the additional duties have been incorrectly levied. This Practice Note provides guidance on how such an importer may request an investigation into the repayment of such incorrect anti-dumping duties or countervailing measures. Legal basis for the repayment investigation The Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act set out that regulations may be promulgated to allow the TRA to investigate if repayment of an anti-dumping duty, a countervailing duty or interest paid in respect of the anti-dumping duty or countervailing measures should be made. The Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act specially empowers

This Practice Note examines the court’s powers to order the repayment of sums paid pursuant to a periodical payments order following the formation of a subsequent marriage or civil partnership by the receiving party or following a change in either party’s circumstances. It also considers the court’s power to remit (cancel) arrears of periodical payments. The Practice Note provides guidance as to the applicable procedure, the approach to costs and the options for exercising analogous powers within an application under Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989). A paying party may seek the exercise of these powers within an application to vary or discharge a periodical payments order or in response to an enforcement application. See generally, Practice Notes: Periodical payments—variation of orders and Enforcement of financial orders. Less frequently, the powers may be exercised following a free-standing application. There are no statutory equivalents to the powers available under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) or the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (CPA 2004) where the periodical payments order was

Where a facility is committed (eg term loans and revolving facilities), exactly how and when the facility is to be repaid will be set out in the facility agreement. Committed facility agreements will normally also state: • whether or not the borrower is allowed to repay the facility prior to the set repayment date(s) (ie make a voluntary prepayment), together with any parameters relating to such prepayments such as minimum amounts or fees which must be paid, and • whether there are any events that require the borrower to repay all or part of the facility early (ie make a mandatory prepayment) Uncommitted facilities, such as overdrafts, will normally just contain a provision stating that the facility is repayable by the borrower upon the lender's demand. Likewise, as there is no set repayment date, the borrower is normally able to repay as and when it wishes. This Practice Note explains: • typical repayment provisions for term and revolving credit facilities in loan agreements • voluntary prepayment provisions, including break costs and prepayment fees, prepayment premiums

Where a facility is committed, exactly how and when the facility is to be repaid will be set out in the facility agreement (ie terms of repayment). Committed facility agreements will normally also state: • whether or not the borrower is allowed to repay the facility prior to the set repayment date(s) (ie make a voluntary prepayment), together with any parameters relating to such prepayments such as minimum amounts or fees which must be paid, and • whether there are any events that require the borrower to repay all or part of the facility early (ie make a mandatory prepayment) Financing for a project finance transaction will typically be by way of senior debt usually consisting of a development term loan facility to be used to fund the development and/or construction costs for the project. This Practice Note explains the types of: • repayment provisions • prepayment provisions, and • cancellation provisions that can typically be found in a project finance development term loan facility. The Practice Note

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. Current powers to control anti-social behaviour This Practice Note details the powers that were available under the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 and Housing Act 1996. While new powers have replaced these (under Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014), anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) and anti-social behaviour injunctions (ASBIs) granted under these provisions which are already in place prior to March 2015 remain enforceable. It is no longer maintained. For the content on current powers to control anti-social behaviour see the following Practice Notes: • Anti-social behaviour—powers to close premises under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 • Anti-social Behaviour—the Civil Injunction • Obtaining possession of a secure tenancy [Archived] • Acceptable behaviour contracts and local authorities [Archived] Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003—premises This section details the powers that were available under the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 (ABA 2003). While the new powers replace these, closure orders granted under these provisions and already in place prior

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. Current powers to control anti-social behaviour This Practice Note details the powers that were available under the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 and Housing Act 1996. While new powers have replaced these (under Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014), anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) and anti-social behaviour injunctions (ASBIs) granted under these provisions which are already in place prior to March 2015 remain enforceable. It is no longer maintained. For the content on current powers to control anti-social behaviour see the following Practice Notes: • Anti-social behaviour—powers to close premises under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 • Anti-social behaviour—powers to control behaviour under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 • Possession—anti-social behaviour, nuisance and crime • Acceptable behaviour contracts and local authorities Anti-social behaviour—ASBOs and ASBIs The anti-social behaviour order (ASBO) was introduced in 1999 under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (CDA 1998) as a means of tackling disorderly activity

The Institute for Government (IfG) has published commentary on Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch’s proposal to abolish the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED), stating that the measure is unlikely to deliver the improvements in public services or the cultural change she has outlined. Stuart Hoddinott and Cassia Rowland of the IfG note that Badenoch announced the proposal during a speech at the IfG, where she argued that the duty encourages public bodies to prioritise equality-related considerations over effective service delivery. According to Hoddinott and Rowland, the PSED requires public authorities to consider the impact of their decisions on discrimination, equality of opportunity and relations between different groups, but does not require them to pursue equality of outcomes. Hoddinott and Rowland state that removing the duty would not, in itself, address wider cultural issues within public services and argues that service performance is more closely affected by factors such as short-term policymaking, fragmented regulation and long-term underinvestment. They also note that frontline staff do not generally regard the duty as a significant burden and suggests that its removal is unlikely to generate substantial cost savings.

Where there is split exchange and completion, the buyer will argue for the inclusion of a provision in the SPA/APA stating that the warranties are deemed repeated at completion so that the seller is providing the buyer with warranty protection in respect of events and circumstances which occur after exchange but before completion.