This Q&A uses the following scenario: A and B enter into a contract whereby A agrees to purchase a widget from B for a price of £1,000. B provides the widget to A, but A considers that the widget contains various defects that will require £1,500 to fix and so pays nothing for the widget. Before any payment is made, B assigns the entire debt owed by A to a third party, C. C is now seeking to recover the full purchase price of £1,000, notwithstanding the existence of alleged defects. In this scenario, the underlying transfer between A and C is that C has been assigned a cause of action by B to recover the debt owed which arose under the original contract between A and B. Where a party is assigned

We have found no authority on the interpretation of 'claims' in the context of a contractual limitation clause, and whether this includes counterclaims. Whether counterclaims are to be treated as claims for the purposes of the limitation clause will depend on the construction of the clause. Given that the effect of time bars is to limit liability, the same principles of construction in respect of exemption

We have assumed that the circumstances do not involve the making and acceptance of a Part 36 offer (for which different rules apply). Time-limited offers Authority for the proposition that ‘the offer will cease to be open for acceptance once that time limit has expired’ (as stated in Practice Note: Forming enforceable contracts—offer) is provided in Tinn v Hoffmann & Co (1873) 29 LT 271 (not reported by LexisNexis®). In Tinn v Hoffmann & Co an offer was open until ‘the return of post on the next day.’ There was no answer by return of post the next day and, therefore, it was held that this offer ‘had expired’ (Blackburn J, page 279). The offer was also rejected by a counter offer although the point still remains that the offer expired

In the case of the business tenancy which has not been contracted out, the landlord may rely on the express forfeiture clause. This is because section 24(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954) provides that a tenancy to which LTA 1954, Pt II applies will not come to an end unless terminated in accordance with LTA 1954. Thus, it will continue to be governed by the written terms of the tenancy including any forfeiture clause. The matter is expressly provided for by LTA 1954, s 24(2) which states: ‘the last foregoing subsection shall not prevent the

It would be difficult to suggest that if the new proposed processing is compatible we can always rely on the lawful basis of the original processing. The processing of personal data will only be lawful if the controller complies with all data protection principles at all times. Every purpose of processing must have a corresponding lawful basis. In practice, different purposes could have the same lawful basis but, often, even related purposes could attract a different lawful basis. If the controller wishes to use the personal data for a new purpose, it

When two or more people have interests in a property, they are said to be in co-owners of the property. The most common example of this is when people buy a house together. In co-ownership, a trust of land occurs and the legal estate is held by the persons that purchased the property as trustees for themselves. While the legal interest in the property can only be held under joint tenancy, the beneficial interest in that property can be held either as joint tenancy or as tenants in common. In Bull v Bull Lord Denning stated that since the Law of Property Act 1925 there has been no such thing as a legal tenancy in common, and that all tenancies in common are now equitable

Superficially, it can be said the designation of a wall as a 'party wall' demonstrates that the owners of two adjoining parcels of land each have some degree of ownership in relation to the wall and both have rights and/or responsibilities for it. In the absence of evidence to the contrary or that calls the designation 'party wall' into question, it will be a wall in which more than one landowner has an interest and for which more than one landowner has responsibility. Walls can be wrongly characterised as party walls. One landowner splitting their land into plots along the center line of a wall or two landowners

It is assumed that the claim will inevitably be allocated to the multi-track; the stated value of the claim on the claim form is not less than £50,000; no specific direction for costs budgets was made by the court; and the case had not yet been allocated. Defined terms used in this response: • CCMC—Costs and Case Management Conference • CMC—Case management Conference The deadline for filing and exchanging costs budgets is prescribed by CPR 3.13: ‘(1) Unless the court otherwise orders, all parties except litigants in person must file and exchange budgets— (a) where the stated value of the claim on the claim form is less than £50,000, with their directions questionnaires; or (b)

Set-off of costs against a judgment debt is available either under statute or the inherent jurisdiction of the court. Statutory right It is possible for set-off to be ordered as between damages awarded under different judgments. An application may be made under section 72 of the County Courts Act 1984 (CCA 1984), which provides: ‘(1) Where one person has obtained a judgment or order in a county court against another person, and that other person has obtained a judgment or order against the first-mentioned person in the same or in another county court or in the High Court, either such person may, in accordance with rules of court, give notice in writing to the court or the several courts as the case may be, and may apply to the court or any of the said courts in accordance

This Q&A considers the status of a costs order which is made against multiple parties on a joint and several basis, and the principle of contribution claims in respect of a joint and several debt. Status of costs orders and enforcement by receiving party The status of an order to pay an amount in respect of costs has the status of a money judgment—see section 17 of the Judgments Act 1838 and section 74 of the County Courts Act 1984 regarding interest, and CPR 70.1(2)(d) regarding enforcement. Of course, many costs orders take the form of an order in principle with the amount to be assessed if not agreed. Such orders, lacking a fixed amount, do not have the same status. Where multiple parties are obliged to pay a specified amount on a joint and several basis,

Section 23(3) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (LG(MP)A 1976) provides that where a district council, a London borough council, the Common Council of the City of London or, in Wales, a county or county borough council: ‘…(a) receives from a person appearing to the council to be an owner or occupier

This Q&A assumes that the Nigerian company is already the registered proprietor of the property that is being purchased. If, as is assumed for the purposes of this Q&A, an overseas company is already the registered proprietor of an estate or charge that is being acquired, it follows that it must have satisfied the requirements of HM Land Registry Practice Guide 78 (PG 78) in achieving that registration. On a subsequent sale by an overseas