Disclosure obligations in multi-track claims Under CPR 31.5(2), unless the court orders otherwise, parties involved in multi-track cases (and which do not involve a claim in personal injury) will be obliged to comply with the requirements under CPR 31.5(3)–CPR 31.5(5). Put simply, these are to: • file and serve a disclosure report (Form N263) • seek to agree, through discussion with your opponent(s), a disclosure proposal to put to the court according to CPR 31.5(2) The parties should seek to agree appropriate disclosure in order to meet the requirements of the overriding objective and in all multi-track cases, except personal injury, they should indicate on the

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: Katie Longstaff, barrister at St Philips Stone Chambers, discusses the recent case of Gillan and others v HEC Enterprises Ltd and others and warns that office-holders should think carefully before embarking on costly trust-related work.

What is selective licensing? Selective licensing is a licensing regime for private landlords that applies to a specified area designated by the relevant local housing authority (LHA) pursuant to Part 3 of the Housing Act 2004 (HA 2004). Selective licensing works in broadly the same way as the mandatory licensing provisions relating to houses in multiple occupations (HMOs). However, it applies to all private rental properties in the designated area, whether the property forms one or multiple households. For further reading on the licensing process, see Practice Notes: Houses in multiple occupation (HMOs)—applying for a licence and Houses in multiple occupation (HMOs)—licensing regime. The policy behind these provisions is to enable an LHA to seek to improve the standards of rental stock available for private sector tenants by imposing licence requirements on private landlords who let property in such designated areas. For this reason, the selective licencing regime is available only in respect of areas which meet certain criteria. The area must either be, or

Under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (EU(W)A 2018), before certain proposed statutory instruments (Brexit SIs) are formally laid in Parliament, they have to go through a preliminary sifting process to determine the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny. Committees in both Houses of Parliament are responsible for the sifting process and are inviting submissions from individuals and organisations to assist in their work. Main scrutiny procedures for Brexit SIs EU(W)A 2018, s 8 allows the government to introduce Brexit SIs to deal with anticipated ‘deficiencies’ in retained EU law arising from Brexit. The main parliamentary scrutiny procedures for Brexit SIs introduced by government ministers are set out in EU(W)A 2018, Sch 7 Pt 1 (with variations for instruments made by or jointly with the devolved administrations). They include: • negative procedure―laid in Parliament after being made, subject to annulment within 40 days by either House of Parliament • draft affirmative procedure (also referred to as affirmative procedure)―laid in draft and approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament before being made

What is sifting? The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 (REUL(RR)A 2023) contains a range of legislative powers, enabling relevant national authorities to reform retained EU law (REUL) by introducing secondary legislation to amend, revoke, restate and/or replace REUL and assimilated law. Under REUL(RR)A 2023, before certain statutory instruments (described here as ‘REUL reform SIs’) are formally laid in Parliament, they have to go through a preliminary sifting process to confirm the appropriate parliamentary procedure. The recommendations of the sifting committees are set out in regular reports. If either committee recommends that a proposed negative SI should be upgraded to the affirmative procedure, the government may accept the recommendation or reject it. In the latter case, the minister responsible must provide an explanation, but may still proceed with the SI under the negative procedure. This Q&A explains the sifting process under REUL(RR)A 2023 in a little more detail. Note: specific requirements and scrutiny procedures apply for SIs introduced by, or jointly with,

Impact of the failure of the defendant to file an acknowledgment of service A defendant is required to file an acknowledgment of service form (CPR 8.3). Where a defendant fails to do so, the consequences are severe in that the automatic sanction under CPR 8.4 will apply. This provides that the defendant may attend, but not take part in, the hearing unless the court gives permission for the defendant to do so. However, a defendant may apply for relief from this sanction under CPR 3.9. Requirement to provide the defendant with the acknowledgment of service An issue arises where the failure of the defendant to file an acknowledgment of service arises due to the claimant

A tenant who holds a long lease of a flat (and has been the owner for at least two years) has a statutory right (subject to compliance with statutory qualifying criteria) to a 90 year extension of the lease, for which the tenant must pay a premium. Although the right is expressed as the tenant being granted an extended lease, the actual method for giving effect to this right is for the tenant to be granted a new lease, in substitution for the existing lease, for a term equal to the unexpired residue of the existing lease plus 90 years. When a lease is extended, the freehold becomes less valuable. If there are: • more than 80 years left to run on the lease, this reduction in value to the freehold is limited and accordingly no compensation is payable and the cost of the lease extension will usually be fairly modest

An assignment is the transfer of a right or an interest vested in one party (assignor) to another party (assignee). The effect of a valid assignment is to entitle the assignee to demand performance of a contractual obligation. Assignments may be legal or equitable. A legal assignment is one which meets the requirements set out in section 136(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA 1925). It must be: • absolute and unconditional and not purport to be by way of charge only • made in writing and signed by the assignor • expressly notified in writing to the obligor Equitable assignments may arise in the following circumstances: • where there is an intention to assign, but not all of the formalities of a legal assignment are met under LPA 1925, s 136(1), the assignment may still be valid as an equitable assignment. The formalities for an equitable assignment to be effective are far

It is common practice for releases of easements to be made with limited, full or no title guarantee. By way of example see the deed of release located in the Encyclopaedia of Forms & Precedents—16 Deed of release of easement where

Acceptance Firstly, let’s tackle the question of what constitutes acceptance for the purposes of a contract. See Practice Notes on Standard terms and conditions—incorporation—Battle of the forms and Standard terms and conditions—incorporation—Course of dealing, which explain that certainly an offer from one party can be accepted by the conduct of another. To determine whether the act of accepting a bank transfer/direct debit constitutes 'acceptance of an offer' in the scenario in question, you would need to take a step back and identify what previous action constitutes the offer that is being accepted, and indeed whether the other essential elements of a contract are in play for a valid contract to come into formation (see Practice Note: Forming enforceable contracts—authority). However, this question goes beyond considering (in isolation) whether the act of accepting a bank transfer/direct debit constitutes 'acceptance of an offer' at the outset of a (potential) contractual relationship. In the example scenario, the fact of termination

An undertaking is a promise that one party will do something in the future whereas a warranty is a promise that a present fact or circumstance is true. Unlike a breach of a warranty, the breach of an undertaking may give rise to a claim for specific performance and injunctive relief. Background The words ‘warrants’ and ‘undertakes’ are often used as a single grouped concept. However, they are not interchangeable. Each has different temporal characteristics and different remedies. Understanding the differences between them and using them appropriately can be important to ensure that the correct remedies attach to the appropriate terms in an agreement. (For more details and other key terms, see Practice Note: Contract interpretation—conditions, warranties and intermediate terms). In essence, an undertaking is a promise that one party will do something in the future whereas a warranty is a promise that a present fact or circumstance is true. In a real estate contract, a seller may warrant that there are no defects

Under English law, succession to movable assets is governed by the law of the deceased’s domicile, whereas in the case of immovables, it is the law of the jurisdiction in which the immovables are situated. Some jurisdictions, however, will not treat movables and immovables separately or differently. They will insist on the whole estate being dealt with under the law of domicile of the deceased, regardless of the nature of the assets or their location. We understand that Brazil is a country which applies such a unitarian approach. Accordingly, as the deceased was domiciled in Brazil at the time of death, an