Obligations of an assignor tenant under an old lease The general rule is that where the lease is an old tenancy, the original tenant remains liable for the tenant covenants throughout the term of the lease, even if it has assigned its interest. However, there are some exceptions: • the tenant will not be liable for any obligation arising from a variation of the lease made without its consent following assignment, unless the variation was anticipated under the terms of the original lease, eg an increase in rent under the rent review clause. (See Friends’ Provident Life Office v British Railways Board, and section 18 of the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 (LT(C)A 1995) • an assignee of an old tenancy is liable for those tenant covenants that touch and concern the land for as long as the lease remains vested in

A representative is under a duty to pay the debts of the deceased. The duty was set out clearly in Re Tankard as follows: 'it is the duty of executors, as a matter of the due administration of the estate to pay the debts of the testator with due diligence having regard to the assets in their hands which are properly applicable for that purpose and in determining whether due diligence has bene shown regard must be had to all the circumstances of the case' The duty to pay debts is owed not only to creditors but also to beneficiaries as their entitlement to a distribution will depend on there being assets out of which a distribution can be made after all debts are paid. The provisions of the deceased’s Will in relation to the realisation of assets are irrelevant to a creditor who is entitled to payment irrespective

In Family cases, the rules relating to the instruction of experts are set out in the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, Pt 25 and the supporting Practice Directions. The overriding duty of the expert is to the court, and not to the party or parties instructing them. An expert may be instructed by one party, or may be a single joint expert. In children proceedings, the court’s control over expert evidence is now given statutory force and its permission is required before an expert can be instructed or before a child can be medically or psychiatrically examined or otherwise assessed for the purposes of the provision of expert evidence

Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE 2006), SI 2006/246 queries often arise in the context of commercial property transactions. For example, the freehold of a commercial building, such as an office block or a shopping centre, may be acquired by a new landlord, a lease of whole or part of a commercial building may be assigned from one tenant to another, or a landlord may wish to change the provider of property management services (managing agent) for a particular building. The commercial building may have a team of staff, such as a building manager, caretakers, security staff and cleaners, who work at the building. Such employees may: • be engaged directly by the landlord (eg a building manager) • be engaged directly by the managing agent • or, more typically, be engaged by a third party service providers (eg cleaners and security staff) Relevant transfers for the purposes of (TUPE 2006), SI 2006/246 are: • business

We do not have a Practice Note on the specific point raised in this Q&A. However, the following which may be useful. The right of access to personal data Sections 7 and 8 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA 1998) set out a data subject’s right of access to personal data held by a data controller. An individual has a right to be informed whether a data controller is processing personal data about them and to be given: • a description of the personal data of which they are the data subject • to be informed of the purposes

Section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA 1985) governs applications regarding the reasonableness of service charges. It provides that an application may be made to the appropriate tribunal by both landlords and leaseholders, for a determination whether a service charge is payable, and, if it is, as to the person by whom and to whom it is payable, the amount which is payable, the date at or by which it is payable, and the manner in which it is payable. An application may also be made for a determination whether, if costs were incurred for services, repairs, maintenance, improvements, insurance or management of any specified description, a service charge would be payable for the costs, and if it is, the same matters as above. An application cannot be made in respect of a

A framework agreement allows a single tender process to be carried out in respect of a number of construction projects or tasks, therefore reducing the time, costs and administration involved in contract procurement, drafting and negotiation. See Framework agreements for construction lawyers—overview. Where a framework agreement has been executed as a deed and the call-off contract as a simple contract, the limitation period for a breach of contract will depend on whether the alleged breach is: • of a term(s) of the framework agreement, or • of a term(s) of the call-off contract In this regard, it is necessary to consider the terms of the framework agreement and call-off contract, as well as the nature

In conducting our research we have focussed on limitation of claims against personal representatives (PRs). Limitation of claims against PRs Section 21 of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980)—time limit for actions in respect of trust property provides that: • no period of limitation prescribed by this Act shall apply to an action by a beneficiary under a trust, being an action: ◦ in respect of any fraud or fraudulent breach of trust to which the trustee was a party or privy, or ◦ to recover from the trustee trust property or the proceeds of trust property in the possession of the trustee, or previously received by the trustee and converted to his use And

For the purpose of this response we have assumed that the claim in question concerns a simple contract (ie one which is not under seal or a contract of record) debt. On this basis, the relevant statutory authority is section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980). LA 1980, s 5 states that ‘An action founded on simple contract shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued’. For more information, see Practice Note:

Regarding limitation periods generally, see Practice Notes: Limitation—the principal limitation periods and Limitation Act 1980—general application. From these you will note that the limitation period for claims in contract is six years (section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980)) and for tort is six years (LA 1980, s 2). Limitation for equitable claims With regard to claims in equity, LA 1980, s 36 provides that certain limitation periods (including the six-year period for tort and contract claims) shall not apply to any claim for ‘equitable relief’, unless they can be applied by analogy with the way that a court would have applied any corresponding time limit before 1 July 1940. Halsbury's provides at para 262 that: ‘when claims are made in equity which are not, as regards equitable proceedings, the subject of any express statutory bar, but the equitable proceedings correspond to a remedy at law in

There is no specific limitation period for a claim challenging the validity of a Will whether on the grounds of incapacity, want of knowledge and approval, undue influence, want of proper execution etc but such a claim should be raised as soon as possible and preferably before a grant of probate is obtained. The normal process where the validity of a Will is challenged would be for the challenging party to register a caveat preventing a grant being issued. The personal representative will then need to warn off the caveat and if the challenging party then enters an appearance to the warning, ie objects to the caveat being removed, the issues raised by the challenging party will need to be determined. Quite often the determination will be triggered by the executors issuing a claim for proof of the Will in solemn form which those challenging

Where a company disposes of any of its property at the time between the presentation of a winding-up petition against it and a winding-up order being made on that petition, that disposition is void under section 127 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), unless otherwise validated by the court (whether before or after the disposition occurs). IA 1986, s 127 applies only in respect of a company that has been wound up by the court. For further reading on IA 1986, s 127 and its effect, see Practice Note: Restrictions