Commercial analysis: Can a stake in a company wagered and lost in a gambling contract be enforced in any circumstances and what can the losing party do in terms of damage limitation? Melanie Ellis, senior associate at Harris Hagan, provides a guide to the legislative landscape.

The Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (LRHUDA 1993) provides in Part I the right to tenants of flats collectively to enfranchise by means of acquiring the freehold of their building. The right applies to the 'relevant premises' (LRHUDA 1993, s 1) within which their flats are comprised, together with any appurtenant or common property (LRHUDA 1993, s 1(3)). LRHUDA 1993, ss 3 and 4 set out the premises to which the right to collective enfranchisement applies. LRHUDA 1993, s 3(1) provides that the right applies to any premises if they consist of a self-contained building or part of a building; they contain two or more flats held by qualifying tenants and the total number of flats held

It is common for leases to permit use of the demised premises only for specific purposes such as, in this scenario, use as a golf club. Such user clauses often provide, as here, for use for ‘all purposes reasonably ancillary thereto’. This enables additional functions which are associated with the primary use to be carried out from the premises without the need for a change of use. ‘Ancillary’ is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as ‘in addition to something else, but not as important’. Therefore, there must be a connection with the primary use, although the ancillary use may be of a

In answering this Q&A it has been assumed that the competent landlord ie the person who is legally capable of granting the required extension of the term is the freeholder but the answer to the question would be the same even if the competent landlord were the head lessee. If the occupational tenant of a flat seeks a new lease by serving a notice pursuant to section 42 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (LRHUDA 1993) and it is accepted that the tenant has the right to as new lease then

By section 34(1)(b) of the Housing Act 1988 (HA 1988), a tenancy that is entered into after the commencement of the HA 1988 (15 January 1989) cannot be a protected tenancy unless it is granted to a person (alone or jointly with others) who, immediately before the tenancy was granted, was a protected

It is not known whether the property in question is commercial or residential nor whether it is freehold, leasehold or commonhold. A deferred management fee (DMF) is a payment which the property owner is required to make on the occurrence of certain specified events (trigger event), such as the sale of the property. DMFs are sometimes encountered in the context of retirement properties usually held as leasehold, commonhold or freehold (with rentcharge), see: Basis of sale: Encyclopaedia of Forms and Precedents

Public Law analysis: This case concerns a successful application submitted by the contracting authority under regulation 96 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR 2015), SI 2015/102, to lift the automatic suspension imposed by regulation 95(1), alongside the refusal of a request for an expedited trial by International SOS Assistance UK Ltd (the claimant). The judgment highlights the court’s careful consideration of urgency surrounding the implementation of new arrangements, in this case, the provision of medical services to military personnel overseas. The case provides useful clarification on the factors considered when determining whether to lift an automatic suspension. It highlights the court’s approach in weighing the potential advantages to the contracting authority of lifting the suspension against the interests of the claimant and the wider public in maintaining it, particularly where lifting the suspension could enable the award of a contract offering additional benefits beyond those currently in place. The judgment places a spotlight on the inherent difficulties in assessing damages, noting that such calculations require consideration of complex and uncertain hypothetical scenarios. As a result, the court concluded that damages could not be regarded as an adequate remedy for either the claimant or the contracting authority in this case. Considering then the balance of convenience, Mr Justice Eyre determined that the public interest in implementing the new arrangements promptly, particularly given consideration to the operational readiness and national security concerns, outweighed the claimant’s risk of uncompensated loss, such that the suspension was lifted and the request for expedition refused. Written by Sam Pringle, senior associate and Charlotte Jones, trainee solicitor at DWF Law LLP.

When a chargeholder is considering options for enforcement of security granted to it by a company, the two main options they might consider are appointment of a fixed charge/LPA receiver and appointment of an administrator. Which option is ultimately chosen will depend on both legal and commercial factors. This Practice Note explores some of the main differences between the two options which might impact on which option is ultimately chosen. For information on the circumstances in which the chargeholder may be able to make such appointments, see Practice Notes: • administrator—see Practice Notes: Out-of-court administrator appointments—who can appoint and in what circumstances? and Court appointments—who can apply and in what circumstances? • receiver—see Practice Note: Procedure relating to appointment of LPA or fixed charge receiver(s) For floating charges created prior to 15 September 2003 the chargeholder may be able to appoint an administrative receiver in specified limited circumstances. For further information, see Practice Notes: Procedure relating to the appointment of an administrative receiver and Roles, powers and duties

This Practice Note looks at the requirement that the annual accounts of a limited liability partnership (LLP) be audited, as well as the statutory requirements concerning the content of the auditor's report, in accordance with Part 16 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006), as applied by the Limited Liability Partnerships (Accounts and Audit) (Application of Companies Act 2006) Regulations 2008. Requirement for an LLP to audit its accounts An LLP is required to have its annual accounts for a financial year audited in accordance with CA 2006, Pt 16, unless the LLP can take advantage of one of the available exemptions. The term ‘audit’ is not defined in CA 2006, however, the function of the auditor of an LLP is to report on its annual accounts (auditor’s report). An LLP must send a copy of its annual account and auditor’s report to: • every member of the LLP, and • every holder of the LLP’s debentures each financial year, no later than the deadline for

This Practice Note looks at the requirement that a company’s annual accounts be audited in accordance with Part 16 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) as well as the statutory provisions of CA 2006 and other relevant legislation concerning the content of the auditor’s report. There may be other rules relating to a company’s obligations in relation to audit that apply to a listed company, an AIM company or a company with securities that are listed on the AQSE Main Market, AQSE Growth Market or AQSE Trading (formerly NEX Exchange Main Board, NEX Exchange Growth Market and NEX Exchange Secondary Market), but these are outside the scope of this Practice Note. Requirement for a company to audit its accounts Under CA 2006, s 475, a company is required to have its annual accounts for a financial year audited in accordance with CA 2006, Pt 16, unless the company can take advantage of one of the exemptions available. The term ‘audit’ is not defined in CA 2006, however, the function

Dispute Resolution analysis: Successful summary judgment application in the Commercial Court concerning an exclusive licence agreement under which minimum royalties were payable. The claimant licensor sought judgment for a discrete US$635,810 sum said to have been acknowledged as payable following termination for non-payment. The defendant licensee resisted on the basis of a misrepresentation/rescission case advanced in its Defence and Counterclaim, also bringing a reverse summary judgment application seeking declaratory relief on the construction of the renewal/term and minimum royalty provisions. The court entered judgment for the claimant and dismissed the defendant’s reverse summary judgment application. Written by Alexander Whatley, barrister at Gatehouse Chambers.

This Practice Note is designed to assist in spotting opportunities for when a Third Party Debt Order (TPDO) can be used as a means of enforcing a money judgment. For guidance on the process for obtaining a TPDO and for frequently asked questions in relation to them, see Practice Notes: • How to apply for a third party debt order (TPDO) • Third party debt orders—flowchart • Third party debt orders—frequently asked questions Is a TPDO worth the effort? Once a money judgment has been obtained, if it remains unpaid then enforcement action can be taken by the creditor. What enforcement action is taken is entirely the creditor’s choice (see CPR 70.2(2)). TPDOs are the least used enforcement method. The reasons for this are probably due to the fact that the creditor has to supply evidence to the court for their knowledge or belief that the third party is indebted to the debtor (CPR PD 72, para 1.2(7)). This can be difficult to do. Ministry of Justice