The regulation referred to in this Q&A is Council Regulation (EC) No. 805/2004 creating a European Enforcement order for uncontested claims. This is annexed to CPR PD 74B or can be viewed as a PDF here. For general information on enforcing a judgment using an EEO see: Can I enforce a judgment quickly in an EU Member State using an EEO?. For specific information on enforcing an EEO on an individual in the UK you need to consider the provisions in CPR 74.31 which provided that a person seeking to enforce an EEO in England and Wales needs to lodge with the English court the documents required under art 20 of the regulation. These documents are: • a copy of the judgment which satisfies

The rules for proceeding by means of a consent order in financial remedies proceedings are contained within Family Procedure Rules 2010 index (rule 9.26 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955) as follows: ‘9.26 Applications for consent orders for financial remedy (1) Subject to paragraph (5) and to rule 35.2 in relation to an application for a consent order— a) the applicant must file two copies of a draft of the order in the terms sought, one of which must be endorsed with a statement signed by the respondent to

We refer you to Practice Note: Taking security over land, which states that only a legal mortgage in respect of land is registrable at HM Land Registry; an equitable mortgage or charge is not (though its priority should be protected by a notice on the register). HM Land Registry A legal charge in respect of registered land is a 'registrable disposition' and must also be registered at HM Land Registry in order to take effect at law (see Practice Note: Perfecting security over land). If the charge is not registered at HM Land Registry, it will take effect only as an equitable mortgage; section 27(2)(f) of the Land Registration Act 2002 (LRA 2002). An equitable mortgage or charge is not registrable at HM Land Registry but it can still be protected at HM Land Registry by a notice (see the heading ‘Perfecting security over land—Unregistrable security interests—how to enter a notice’ in the

The question posed is whether the head landlord local authority will take on a secure tenancy under the Housing Act 1985 (HA 1985). If it does, then the (sub)tenant would acquire security under HA 1985, Pt IV and their tenancy could only be ended through a possession order (HA 1985, s 82) and only on grounds specified at HA 1985, Sch 2 Pt I (HA 1985, s 84). If, on the other hand, the local authority takes on a non-secure tenancy or licence, then the letting can be ended through a simple notice to quit. The first statutory principle is that a tenancy to which Part II of the Landlord

The rent stop is indicative of the landlord’s intention that they do not wish to have a legal relationship with the former tenant. The law does not impute intention to enter into legal relationships where the circumstances and conduct of the parties negative any intention of that kind. Nevertheless, the relevant principles are as follows. Assuming that the landlord has not entered into an express agreement for, or express grant of, a new tenancy, the only way in which a periodic tenancy could arise is where a grant can be inferred. This will always be a question of fact to be decided by the court, having regard to all the circumstances. In particular, where a tenant holds over after the expiry of a lease, the tenant becomes ‘a tenant on sufferance’. This legal status carries the potential for the tenant

A notice to end a business tenancy under section 25 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954) may be served before or after the contractual expiry date of the lease. In other words, it may be served either during the term or when the tenant is holding over after the lease ends. In either case, the notice must be in the prescribed form and must give a termination date between six and 12 months after service. The date specified cannot be earlier than the contractual expiry date

The National Home Building Council (NHBC) offers insurance and warranty products under the name Buildmark. This includes a two year builder warranty period and an eight year cover for damage to certain parts of the home caused by a failure to build to the NHBC Technical Requirements. The scheme is both a policy of insurance and a warranty by the builder to carry out certain works. The primary obligation is on the builder to remedy the defects within a reasonable period of time. NHBC provides a guarantee of those obligations

Noticed of proposed allocation The first stage in allocation is for a court officer to provisionally allocate your case to what it thinks is the most suitable track. It will then send the parties a notice of proposed allocation (the 'court's notice') (CPR 26.3(1)(a)) It would appear that you have been sent Form N149B which is the form for proposed allocation to the fast track. This form does not provide any directions requiring compliance with CPR 3.13 ie filing of a costs budget. This is not withstanding that it also provides that if you believe that the fast track is not the appropriate track for the claim, you must complete box D2 on the Directions Questionnaire (Form N181) and explain why. The

The treatment of a Part 20 claim is set out in CPR 20.3(1) as follows: ‘an additional claim shall be treated as if it were a claim for the purposes of these Rules, except as provided by this Part’. For further information, see Practice Note: Counterclaims and additional claims under CPR 20—initial considerations and permission. The treatment of a Part 20 claim means that if the main claim is settled the Part 20 claim will continue and vice versa.

One can argue that under the general rule of subrogation the insurer, having indemnified their insured, steps into insured’s shoes and on the same principle the Part 36 offer should be served on the insurer. However, CPR PD 36, para 1.2 is clear that where there is a legal representative acting for the offeree, the Part 36 offer must be served on that legal representative. It is therefore worth checking whether, before the service of the Part 36 offer, the claimant’s insurer was made aware that the defendant

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) sets out a specific test for deciding whether a person lacks mental capacity: 'a person lacks capacity in relation to a matter if at the material time he is unable to make a decision for himself in relation to the matter

The liability for the inheritance tax on a lifetime termination of a 'qualifying' interest in possession is set out in section 201(1)(a) of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (IHTA 1984), subject to the restriction in IHTA 1984, s 204(6)(b). The trustees are primary liable for paying the inheritance tax which would arise if the life tenant were to die within seven years of the termination of the interest in possession. If the trustees do not pay