This Q&A is limited to the duties of confidentiality and disclosure applying under the SRA Code for Solicitors 2019 and the SRA Code for Firms 2019. For further information, see Practice Note: Duties of confidentiality and disclosure. The SRA’s core regulatory requirements in relation to confidentiality are found in the SRA Code for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs (Code for Solicitors) and the SRA Code for Firms, which should be read in the context of the SRA Principles 2019. Paragraphs 6.3–6.5 of the Code for Solicitors

This Q&A assumes that: • the data sharing takes place within the UK and is exclusively subject to the UK’s General Data Protection Regulation, Retained Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (UK GDPR) • the law firm and Client X are each acting as a controller in relation to all relevant processing activities and data sharing (see below) This reply focuses on what may be necessary only from the data protection compliance perspective of the law firm in relation to having an agreement in place with Company Y. It does not consider what may be necessary for compliance by any other organisation (eg Client X or Company Y) or what may be necessary

The starting point is that an executor, like a trustee, will carry out their duties without remuneration. However, where a professional executor is appointed by the Will, particularly where that appointment is as sole executor, the Will will ordinarily include a charging clause, allowing the professional executor to charge reasonable remuneration for services provided in connection with the administration of the estate. In such circumstances professional fees can be recovered from the estate without consultation with or the agreement of, the beneficiaries. Section 28 of the Trustee Act 2000 (TrA 2000) alters the common law

Water leaks are often a cause of damage to property including adjoining properties, and may go unnoticed for months or years, after which time the damage may be considerably more serious than would have been the case had the leak been discovered promptly. As such, the neighbouring landowner who has suffered the damage may wish to bring a claim in nuisance and/or negligence for the damage caused by the leak. In nuisance, the liability is not a strict or absolute liability, a person not being liable unless they have continued or adopted the nuisance, or, more accurately, did not without undue delay remedy it when he became aware of it, or with ordinary and reasonable care should have become aware of it. Likewise, in negligence, it is necessary to show, duty,

Whether the pre-conditions to the exercise of a lease break option have been complied with will always be a question of analysis of the specific circumstances, including most critically the precise terms of the lease, in their full context, and the factual circumstances. This will include in this scenario, for example, the communications that have passed between the landlord and tenant and the steps the tenant has

The issue of alterations should not be overlooked at lease renewal. The premises may have been significantly altered. Unless the parties state otherwise, the property leased is the property in the physical state it is in at the date of the lease. Therefore, ideally the parties should agree exactly what is to be demised and yielded up at the expiry of the new term. Ideally this should be set out clearly in the lease, by reference to a detailed description (possibly with a requirement to remove certain alterations at the outset). Otherwise, a landlord may find that it is unable to require a tenant to remove previous alterations as they will be considered to be part of the demise. See Practice Note: Tenant’s reinstatement. Having said that, the meaning and effect

In this Q&A, we have taken into consideration the right of a tenant to make alterations to a demised premises. It is common for a landlord to place restrictions upon the ability of a tenant to make alterations to the demised premises. There might be an absolute bar upon carrying them out or there might be a requirement to seek the landlord’s consent before doing so. There might be different levels of restriction according to whether an alteration is structural or non-structural. It is also quite common for there to be a requirement to reinstate the premises to their original condition on the expiry of the lease. It is not uncommon for the restrictions to be greater in shorter leases. This is perhaps not surprising as the landlord will not necessarily want to be restricted to a changed

Where a lease contains a description of the demised premises along with a plan of the demised premises, but there is no wording suggesting which of the two would prevail in the event of contradiction, one must go back to ordinary principles of contractual interpretation. In Druce v Druce, Arden

Land Registry Practice Guide 19A (PG 19A) provides that: ‘Most leases contain a covenant against the assignment or underletting of the property without the consent of the landlord. An entry will be made in the property register where the lease contains such a covenant, to ensure that a buyer is aware of it. A landlord may forfeit

Service charges are only payable if the lease provides for such recovery, and it is usual that the mechanism for the demand and recovery of service charges is set out in terms within the lease. Standard provisions will include the provision of an annual statement giving an account and breakdown of the service charges incurred, as well as when demands can be made and how they are payable. See Q&A: Do commercial service charge demands have to comply with the same provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 & 1985 as residential service charge demands? Do they have to state the name and address of the landlord, the address for

The meaning and effect of a rent review clause is always a matter of interpretation of the particular words used, subject to all the usual principles of construction. See Practice Note: Contract interpretation—the guiding principles and Commentary: Construction generally: Hill and Redman's Law of Landlord and Tenant [1868]. Subject to that caveat, as pointed out in Commentary: The date from which rent becomes payable: Hill and Redman's Law of Landlord and Tenant [2265]: ‘In nearly all cases the reviewed rent will be payable from the review date in substitution for the rent previously payable. A well drawn rent review clause will provide expressly that this is to occur. In the absence of an express

We are assuming the alterations, though structural, are within the demise. As to alterations outside the demise see Practice Note: Alterations outside the demise. Where a lease contains an absolute prohibition against alteration, the tenant is not able to carry out alterations to the demise. The landlord can, however, consent to the carrying out of those alterations. It is not strictly necessary for the lease to be varied though this is likely to be sensible. However, if the works which are the subject of the licence are incompatible with a tenant covenant, a landlord may be prevented