The Immigration Rules, Part Suitability, para SUI 11.1 provides a mandatory ground for refusal of entry clearance or permission to enter where a person has previously breached immigration laws (as defined in para SUI 11.4) and the application is made within the relevant time period (as defined in para SUI 12.1). A 12 month re-entry ban or mandatory refusal period is incurred where a person who has previously breached immigration laws leaves the UK voluntarily and at their own expense and there is no aggravating factor that increases the length of the ban. However, if a person is in fact admitted to the UK as a visitor during the mandatory refusal period, it would not appear that the mere fact of that admission automatically creates an additional ground for refusal in a later application. The question becomes whether the circumstances

Where a party makes a non-Part 36 offer then the general common law rules of contract law, with regard to offer and acceptance, apply. If you wish to make a Part 36 offer, then the specific rules of CPR 36 with regard to offer, withdrawal, variation, acceptance and rejection will apply, see Part 36 offers—overview. There is limited guidance on what might happen where parties start to

This Q&A assumes that the trust in question is not a trust registered in the European Economic Area (EEA). Broadly, the non-UK trusts which are required to register under the Trust Registration Service (TRS) are: • non-UK express trusts with a UK tax liability • non-UK express trusts which acquire UK land, or • non-UK express trusts which have at least one UK resident trustee and enter into a UK business relationship This Q&A assumes that only category a. is relevant to this query. As such, it is a 'taxable relevant trust' as defined in the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 (MLR 2017), SI 2017/692, reg 45(14): For the purposes of this regulation, a taxable

Part 10 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010, SI 2010/2955, (FPR 2010), which is concerned with applications under Part IV of the Family Law Act 1996 including non-molestation orders, does not set out a specific procedure to govern the issue of an application to discharge undertakings. Accordingly the application will be governed by FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, Pt 18, as it is an application within the non-molestation order proceedings in which the undertaking was given. The proceedings will be issued in Form FP2, which

A non-molestation order is made under the Family Law Act 1996 (FLA 1996) and is available to prohibit a person from molesting another person with whom they are associated, or from molesting a relevant child. Molestation is not defined but includes causing physical harm, mental abuse, insults, damaging or threatening to damage property and, in some cases, communicating at all with the applicant. Breach of a non molestation order is a criminal offence. See Practice Note: Non-molestation orders. Applications for non-molestation orders are governed procedurally by Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, Pt 10. FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, 10.5 provides

The Land and Buildings Transaction Tax (Transitional Provisions) (Scotland) Order 2014, SSI 2014/377, reg 13 applies to a lease granted prior to the commencement date of Land and Buildings Transaction Tax (LBTT) (1 April 2015) where there is a variation of the lease after 1 April 2015 to

Where the Home Office is notified of premature end of employment, in line with its sponsor duties, it should curtail the worker’s leave. See Practice Note: Changes of circumstances and reporting them. However, in practice the Home Office can sometimes take months to do this. This means that the person likely still has leave in the relevant route (eg Skilled Worker), despite them no longer meeting the requirement for the route and this having been notified to the Home Office. Where a person in this scenario then leaves the UK, and wants to return as a Visitor, they would not be seeking to enter the UK as a Skilled Worker. It would be open to the person to request not to use an eGate and to ask an Immigration Officer in

Section 60(1) of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (LRHUDA 1993) provides that: ‘(1) Where a notice is given under section 42, then (subject to the provisions of this section) the tenant by whom it is given shall be liable, to the extent that they have been incurred by any relevant person in pursuance of the notice, for the reasonable costs of and incidental to any of the following matters, namely— (a) any investigation reasonably undertaken of the tenant's right to a new lease; (b) any valuation of the tenant's flat obtained for the purpose of fixing

Contractual notice provisions may be permissive or mandatory and validity of a notice will depend on the type of clause: Permissive notice provision Some notice provisions will be permissive as to the methods of service of the break notice. For example, the wording may provide that ‘any notice or demand in connection with this lease may be sent by first class post’ (Yates Building Company Ltd v R J Pulleyn & Sons (York) Ltd)). This means the parties may adopt an alternative method of service of their choosing. Mandatory notice provision If the notice provision is mandatory, then the break notice must be served in accordance with the methods of service specified because if it is not, the break notice will be invalid. In Claire’s Accessories v Kensington High Street Associate [2001] PLSCS 112

The contracting out process is prescribed by the Regulatory Reform (Business Tenancies) (England & Wales) Order 2003, SI 2003/3096. Regulatory Reform (Business Tenancies) (England & Wales) Order 2003, SI 2003/3096, Sch 2 of that Order provides that the notice and

Paragraph 7(5) of Schedule 3 to the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (LRA 1967) states: ‘the tenant shall not institute proceedings in the court with a view to the enforcement of his right to have the freehold or an extended lease before the landlord has given his notice in reply or two months have elapsed without his doing so since the giving of the tenant's

The question raises the issue of whether a notice served under section 27 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954) may be withdrawn. LTA 1954, Pt II gives certain business tenants security of tenure by preventing the termination of the tenancy other than in prescribed ways, and by giving tenants the right to a new lease, unless the landlord can rely on certain grounds of opposition. One of the methods of terminating a business lease is by the tenant serving a notice under LTA 1954, s 27. The tenant must give three months notice: either under LTA 1954, s 27(1) where notice is given not less than three months before the contractual expiry date (in which case, the lease will