Proceedings initiated under the CPR have a set process that needs to be followed by both the claimant and the court. The claim form, once completed, will need to be filed with the issuing court together with a request that the court issue the claim form. Proceedings are started when the court issues a claim form at the request of a claimant (CPR 7.2(1)) and a claim form is issued on the date entered on the form by the court (CPR 7.2(2)). The court is required to seal the claim form (CPR 2.6(1)(a)). The date of issue is important as it signifies the date of commencement of the proceedings and will be used to determine, eg whether any limitation defence applies. Proceedings are started when the court issues a claim form at the request of the claimant (CPR 7.2(1)), but where the claim form as issued was received in the court office on a date earlier

Case Study A company has entered into a creditors voluntary liquidation. It has now been realised that: • the 'director' who signed the resolutions to wind up the company voluntarily at an extraordinary general meeting and signed the Statement of Affairs was never formally appointed as a director. The new 'director' attended the meetings of creditors and members • the previous directors of the company resigned when this director took over, but their resignation has also not been registered at Companies House A

This Q&A considers a scenario where: • there is a business-to-business commercial contract which is not subject to specific industry or sector legislation, rules or practice • the deposit is in relation to the sale of goods • the reference to insolvency, means bankruptcy or liquidation Terms of the contract It will be necessary to check the contract for any express terms concerning the consequences of termination and treatment of the deposit in such circumstances. In analysing a contract, the court will apply an objective test in considering the contract as a whole, not just the relevant clause, and considers the ‘documentary, factual and commercial context’ (Arnold v Britton (at para [15])). See: Contract interpretation—overview. For detailed discussion around contract interpretation, see the following Practice Notes: • Contract interpretation—the guiding principles • Contract interpretation—rules of contract interpretation Where the contract is silent on the treatment of the deposit in the relevant circumstances, the point to consider is whether a

In Mann and another company v Shelfside Holdings Ltd and another the tenant argued that a freehold owner cannot on one day grant a lease to a tenant in the name of a third party which has no interest in the land (and sign the lease as representative of that third party) and on the next day go into possession of the property on the basis of title paramount. The tenant relied on: • estoppel by representation, and/or • the doctrine of apparent ownership The court decided that the tenant had not established an estoppel by representation

The tenancy described will likely not constitute a business tenancy for the purpose of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954) as it does not fall within the definition in LTA 1954, s 23. The company would need to be ‘in occupation’ of the premises for the purpose of its business. It doesn’t appear that the company is actually in occupation, but that the subtenants are. If the company retains a high degree of control (eg the tenant has unfettered access to the residences and the sub-tenants do not enjoy exclusive occupation), it may constitute a business tenancy and the statutory procedure in the LTA 1954 would need to be followed.

A lease with an uncertain term is void. It is therefore not subject to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954) and it does not require termination. Section 1(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA 1925) provides that there are only two estates in land that can exist at law. One is a freehold estate (‘an estate in fee simple absolute in possession’). The other is a term of years absolute (ie a leasehold estate). This phrase is defined in LPA 1925, s 205(1)(xxvii) and, although the definition is extensive, it is clear that the term of years must be certain or liable to determination

The nature of capital contributions Like shareholders in a company, the members of a limited liability partnership (LLP) enjoy limited liability up to the amount of their contributions to the LLP, if any (see section 74 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), read in light of the Limited Liability Partnerships Regulations 2001, SI 2001/1090 (LLPR 2001) made under the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000 (LLPA 2000). There is no legal requirement for a member of an LLP to make a capital contribution. The internal affairs of an LLP will usually be dealt with in an agreement between the members of the partnership (an LLP agreement). In the absence of an LLP agreement, the default provisions set out in the LLPR 2001 will apply. As the default provisions do not deal with capital

Section 106(9) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990) provides that a planning obligation may not be entered into except by an instrument executed as a deed, and by virtue of TCPA 1990, s 106(11), a planning obligation is a local land

In answering this Q&A we have assumed that: • the premises were protected under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954). We also assume that the tenant vacate prior to or upon expiry of the fixed term • the authorised and unauthorised sublettings were entered into before the contractual term of the headtenant’s interest expires—if not, further consideration will need to be given to their status as the headtenant may have purported to granted interests while not having any interest in the property enabling them to do so Status of existing headtenant and how to end relationship We assume that the headlease

Where a winding-up order is rescinded pursuant to the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016, SI 2016/1024, r 12.59 the court will not necessarily dismiss the winding-up petition upon which that order was made. Before the court will dismiss the petition, the applicant must be able to show that

Following the enactment of the Digital Economy Act 2017 (DEA 2017), the new Electronic Communications Code (the ‘new Code’) came into force on 28 December 2017. The previous Code was repealed as of this date but will remain relevant to existing agreements pursuant to transitional provisions in DEA 2017, Sch 2. The Codes are designed to facilitate the installation and maintenance of electronic communications networks and gives various rights to the providers of such networks (‘Operators’), and of key importance are the security of tenure provisions. Once an Operator has been given consent to occupy land, they will have a statutory right to leave the installed equipment on that land even after the expiry of the

Section 173(9) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990) states that: ‘An enforcement notice shall specify the period at the end of which any steps are required to have been taken or any activities are required to have ceased and may specify different periods for different steps or activities; and, where different periods apply to different steps or activities, references in this Part to the period for compliance with an enforcement notice, in relation to any step or activity, are to the period at the end