For parties and lawyers conducting arbitration proceedings seated in England and Wales or Northern Ireland (England is used here as a convenient shorthand) and/or seeking enforcement of domestic or international awards in English and Welsh courts, understanding the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) and its potential governing role over the arbitration proceedings seated in England is fundamental. Unlike the arbitration legislation of some other leading seats of arbitration, for example Hong Kong’s Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609), the AA 1996 does not transpose or is not largely based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the Model Law), although the AA 1996 does owe much to that instrument. The AA 1996 is divided into four parts and four schedules: • AA 1996, Pt 1, which contains the basic principles of the law of arbitration in England including, among other matters, what amounts to an arbitration agreement, the appointment and role of the arbitral tribunal, the conduct of the arbitral proceedings and the court’s supervisory powers over arbitration proceedings • AA 1996,

Construction analysis: The Building Safety (Wales) Bill was introduced to the Senedd by Housing Minister Jayne Bryant on 7 July 2025. It deals with the building safety regime which covers the occupation and ongoing management of multi-occupied residential buildings in Wales. In this article, Rebecca Rees, Property litigation expert and partner in the Dispute Resolution team at Hugh James, provides a detailed guide to the key provisions of the Bill.

Insurance contracts have always had an aura of mystery about them in the eyes of law students and lawyers. This is because they are contracts of the utmost good faith. They are different from other contracts: they need to be handled with extra special care. The main component of the obligation of the utmost good faith, as laid down in the Marine Insurance Act 1906 (MIA 1906), is the duty of the policyholder to volunteer information to the insurer that would ‘influence the judgment of a prudent insurer’ in deciding whether to take the risk and what to charge for it (see: MIA 1906, s 18). This has always been a tall order. It calls on the policyholder to try to work out how the mind of an insurer works and make disclosure accordingly. The insurer, meanwhile, was entitled to sit back, with no obligation to give the policyholder any clues or prompts. It was easy for the policyholder to breach this obligation with very harsh consequences:

Immigration analysis: The Immigration and Asylum Bill 2026 would establish a new Independent Immigration Appeals Authority to replace the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), introduce substantial reforms to Article 8 ECHR claims and deportation appeals, create a temporary ‘core protection’ model for refugees, reform asylum support, and make extensive amendments to the modern slavery framework. This analysis examines the Bill's key provisions and the implications for immigration practitioners. Written by Zoe Bantleman, barrister.

It has been assumed that: • A’s interest under the trust holding a 50% share of the house is a qualifying interest in possession (QIIP) • A’s interest under the trust does not fall within section 5(1B) of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (IHTA 1984) • the release of A’s interest in possession will terminate the trust • B is not a settlor of the trust The termination of the QIIP and the gift of the other 50% share are both potentially exempt transfers (PET) made by A, which will become chargeable to IHT if A dies within seven years. See Practice Note: Qualifying interest in possession trusts—IHT

In this scenario, a person (the owner) is the freeholder (or long leaseholder) of the whole of a mixed use building. The owner lets part of the premises to a head tenant, and gives a covenant to repair the retained parts. Part of the demised property is then underlet

See Practice Note: Land registration—restrictions on title under the Land Registration Act 2002, which notes that an interest under a trust of land can only be protected by a restriction. A restriction makes it apparent from the register that either: • the powers of the relevant proprietor are limited, or • a condition must be met before a disposition can be registered Where there is a restriction

Property in joint ownership in England and Wales is held in two manners: legal ownership and beneficial ownership. The legal owners of the property are those who hold the legal title to the property in question and, where the land is registered, are registered as the owners at HM Land Registry. The legal owners hold the property on trust for the beneficial owners who are the true owners of the property. Often, but not always, the legal and beneficial owners will be one and the same. The legal owners always hold the legal interest

For the purposes of this Q&A, we have assumed the easements are registered on the title. Prescription Act 1832 The Prescription Act 1832 (PA 1832) established a statutory basis for prescription of easements that exists alongside common law prescription and the doctrine of lost modern grant. The statutory scheme for prescription can be summarised as follows: • Easements other than rights of light: uninterrupted enjoyment for 40 years creates a claim indefeasible other than by express consent. Uninterrupted enjoyment for 20 years gives rise to a claim that cannot be defeated by showing that the right could not have existed since 1180, but could be defeated by any of the other defences available. Theoretically, therefore, a claim based on 20 years’ worth of use is more

A has no rights over B’s land and cannot require B to grant rights over their (B’s) land. Therefore, A’s only practical option is to try and negotiate with B for the grant of

A person having an interest in the property being disclaimed (for example, a subtenant) continues to hold that interest on the same terms and subject to the same rights and obligations as if the disclaimer had not happened. If they perform the tenant's part in the disclaimed lease, they cannot be ejected; if they do not, the landlord can distrain or forfeit—as summarised by Lord Nicholls in Hindcastle Ltd v Barbara Attenborough Associates Ltd: ‘…His interest continues unaffected by the determination of the tenant’s interest. Accordingly the sub-tenant holds his estate on the same terms, and subject to the same rights and obligations, as would be applicable if the tenant’s interest had continued. If he pays the rent

Where a headtenant company has been dissolved and the lease vests in the Crown as Bona Vacantia, the Crown will usually take steps to disclaim the lease if it considers the interest to be ‘onerous’, which will include where the land in question is of limited value or where it would not be cost effective to dispose of the property. The Crown does not have any right to forfeit. The effect of a disclaimer will be to bring the rights and liabilities of the head tenant to an end under the headlease. Any sub-lease will no longer exist, although the sub-tenant’s interest in the property will be preserved. The sub-tenant is said to have a collection of rights which are capable of being assigned and