Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: This case concerns section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) and the quantum and extent of liability of a number of parties that had benefited from the subject transaction. The court considered how much the ultimate beneficiaries of a transferor company’s transaction at undervalue (the TUV) should be ordered to pay by way of contribution, based on the principle of liability for the ‘same damage’ as the transferee in the TUV. The transferee, and a director of the transferor, were jointly liable to the transferor under IA 1986, s 423. The director was also liable to the transferor for breach of duty. The ultimate shareholders of the transferee were each liable to the transferor under IA 1986, s 423 in respect of the benefit they received in connection the transaction. Each shareholder was also found liable to contribute towards the liability of the transferee. Based on extensive valuation evidence, and considering factors including the insolvency of the transferor and the transferee in the TUV and the position of each shareholder, the court constructed a threshold payment mechanism with liability apportioned so as to justly reflect each respondent’s respective culpability. Written by Martin Young, associate at CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP.

Applications under Insolvency Act 1986, s 426 are commonly used by 'relevant countries or territories' (which are mainly commonwealth countries or former British colonies) making in-bound requests to the UK courts for assistance in cross-border cases.

Section 46(1) of the Family Law Act 1996 (FLA 1996) provides that the court may accept an undertaking from any party to the proceedings when it has the power to make a non-molestation order or occupation order. An undertaking is a promise to the court rather than to the other party in the proceedings, and it may be enforced as if it were an order of the court (FLA 1996, s 46(4)). This means that a breach of undertaking can be treated as a contempt of court, punishable by committal. As another option, the applicant can also apply to the court for

Section 47 of PACE 1984 relates to the release on bail of a person after an arrest, known as police bail.

Section 5 In legal practice, “section 5” refers generically to the fifth numbered provision within a specific Act, regulation or other legislative instrument. It has no fixed, standalone legal meaning across UK or Irish law; its effect depends entirely on the statute in which it appears. For this reason, legal professionals must always read “section 5” with the full citation of the relevant legislation (for example, section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980, section 5 of the Defamation Act 2013, section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, or section 5 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997 (Ireland)). Numbering is internal to each Act, so “section 5” in one statute will usually deal with entirely different subject matter from “section 5” in another. The same principle applies across England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, although the underlying Acts and section contents may differ between jurisdictions. In drafting, interpretation and litigation, precise reference to the correct section 5 (including jurisdiction, year and title of the Act) is essential to avoid ambiguity and ensure accurate statutory interpretation and citation.

Property Disputes analysis: The Court of Appeal has held that where a landlord is required to serve qualifying tenants of flats with an offer notice pursuant to section 5 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (LTA 1987) (tenants’ rights of first refusal) and the transaction involves the disposal of an estate or interest in more than one building, then by virtue of section 5(3) they should ‘sever the transaction’ and serve separate offer notices in relation to each building. When such a disposal is pursuant to a contract and section 5A is engaged, the requirements set out in section 5A(2) will be met by serving a notice containing the particulars of the contract as they relate to each building. In response to arguments on statutory interpretation, the Court of Appeal held that the requirements in section 5A (and 5B-E) are incorporated into section 5, and must be read in the light of it, consequently, the interpretation of section 5A in the circumstances which have arisen becomes clear and there is no need to resort to presumptions. Written by Gemma de Cordova, barrister at Gatehouse Chambers.

This Q&A raises the scope of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (LTA 1987), in the particular regarding a freeholder who owns more than one building. The Act effectively gives tenants holding residential flats under long leases a right of first refusal when the freeholder wishes to dispose of an interest in the premises in which they are contained. See Practice Note: Tenants' right of first refusal—Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, for more information. The

Section 54 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Section 54 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PFA 2012) makes it a criminal offence to immobilise, remove or restrict the movement of vehicles without lawful authority, and is targeted towards rogue wheel clampers. In a previous attempt to tackle the problem, sections 42–44 of the Crime and Security Act 2010 (CSA 2010) and CSA 2010, Sch 1, amended the Private Security Industry Act 2001 (PSIA 2001), to introduce a scheme for the licensing of wheel clamping businesses. The introduction of PFA 2012, s 54 offence in effect replaces that licensing scheme and PSIA 2001 was amended accordingly by PFA 2012, s 115(1). Lawful authority A person commits an offence who, without lawful authority (1) immobilises a motor vehicle by the attachment to the vehicle, or a part of it, of an immobilising

Section 58 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (LRHUDA 1993) governs the position in respect of mortgages both of the leasehold interest that is being ‘extended’ (but which, by virtue of LRHUDA 1993, s 56 is in fact being surrendered and re-granted and thus ordinarily would require the consent of the mortgagee) and in respect of the interest of the landlord. LRHUDA 1993, s 58(4) provides that, where the existing lease immediately before its surrender on the re-grant was subject to a mortgage, the new lease will take effect subject to that mortgage and its terms will apply

If a public company allots shares otherwise than in cash (non-cash consideration) that non-cash consideration must, with some specified exceptions, be independently valued. The valuer’s report must be made and provided to the company in the six months immediately preceding the date on which the shares are allotted and a copy must be sent to the proposed shareholder. For the valuation and reporting requirements see CA 2006, ss 596–597, and see the independent valuation requirements in CA 2006, ss 1150–1153.

The right of pre-emption conferred by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (LTA 1987) applies to a 'relevant disposal' (as that term is defined in LTA 1987, s 4(1)). The grant of a lease of the landlord's reversion will ordinarily qualify as a relevant

Property analysis: When will a right of way be held to exist? The Court of Appeal decided that, in absence of there being no express grant of the rights claimed, the Law of Property Act 1925, s 62 (LPA 1925) operated to grant them—even though there was no diversity of occupation when the rights were held to have come into existence.