The legal interest in a property must be held by co-owners as joint tenants (section 36(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA 1925)). The equitable interest may be held as joint tenants or tenants in common. In the case of joint tenants, the co-owners are equally entitled to the whole of the property. If co-owners hold the property as tenants in common, each has a distinct beneficial share of the property. We note that this Q&A states the freehold interest in the property is held by A and B as tenants in common. It does not, however,

Where a party remains in occupation of a residential property following termination of a right to occupy, assuming that the occupation falls within the scope of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977, an order for possession would be required to recover vacant possession. Such proceedings would be brought under CPR 55 and be issued in the County Court which serves the subject property. Following the death of an individual, their interest in a property will devolve to their personal representatives (PRs) (see section 1 of the Administration of Estates Act 1925). Where there is a Will, the executors will be the PRs. This means that the executors can act in respect of the property as if they were the registered owners. Where one or more named executors does not wish at the time

An easement is extinguished where the freeholds of both the dominant and servient land come into the ownership of the same person. The relevant legal concept is 'unity of seisin', which provides that both pieces of land must be owned by the

The usual position on a secondment is that: • the employee transfers temporarily to work for another organisation • the employee remains employed by the original employer, and • agreement is reached between the original employer, the other organisation and the employee as to their respective rights and obligations during the secondment, eg in relation to duties, payment of salary, holidays, disciplinary and grievance issues See, for example, these Precedents: • Secondment agreement (employer—host) and related drafting notes, and • Letter—secondment letter (employer—employee) and related drafting notes Relevance of TUPE 2006 In some circumstances where an employee moves to work for a different organisation, consideration will have to be given to whether there has in fact been a relevant transfer within the meaning of TUPE 2006. For further information, see: • the drafting notes to the Precedent: Secondment agreement (employer—host), under the heading ‘TUPE 2006’ • TUPE and asset purchases—overview, and • Practice Note: TUPE—business

Common interest privilege Common interest privilege is not a form of privilege in its own right; rather, it enables privilege to be preserved where a document already protected by privilege is shared with a third party. There are then some necessary conditions which must be satisfied before common interest privilege can be asserted. First, the shared communications or document must be covered by another form of privilege (whether legal advice privilege or litigation privilege). Secondly, there must be a common interest between the sharing party and the receiving party at the time of disclosure. As per the guidance given by the High Court in Winterthur Swiss Insurance Company and another v AG (Manchester) Ltd and others, where the communication is produced 'by or at the instance of one party for the purpose of obtaining legal advice or to assist in the conduct of litigation', the common interest must be 'in the subject matter

The courts have the power pursuant to the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA 1996) to declare the beneficial interests of parties in property. The beneficial interest in a property is the ‘true’ ownership, distinct from the ‘paper’ ownership of who is registered at HM Land Registry as the registered proprietor. Such claims are commonly seen where parties cohabit (but do not marry) and the property is in the sole name of one, even though they have treated it as their family

Where land is held on trust, it is a trust of land for the purposes of Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA 1996). Trustees of such land have all the powers of an absolute owner. This will include a power to sell the land. In deciding whether to exercise their powers, they must have regard to the rights of the beneficiaries. Often they will hold the land on trust for themselves. This appears to be the case here and is the most common situation in which a dispute might arise as to whether to sell the land. In exercising their powers however, trustees must exercise such care and skill as is reasonable in the circumstances (TOLATA 1996, s 6(9), applying the duty of care created by TOLATA 1996, s 1). They must

The Leasehold Reform Act 1967 The Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (LRA 1967) was intended to confer on leaseholders of houses, held on long leases at low rents, the right to acquire on fair terms the freehold or an extended lease of their house. Originally these rights were limited to houses below certain rateable values, but these limits were gradually increased by statutory amendment and have since 1993 been almost entirely removed. In essence, and subject to the detail of the Act as repeatedly amended, the entitlement to enfranchise or obtain a lease extension under

We refer you to Practice Notes Regulated mortgage contracts and home finance transactions defined and Entering into and administering home finance transactions. A regulated sale and rent back agreement (SRBA) is defined in Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001 (RAO), SI 2001/544, art 63J and, broadly speaking, is an arrangement under which, at the time it is entered into, a person (the agreement provider) buys all or part of an interest in land (other than time share accommodation) in the UK from a homeowner (being an individual or a trustee whose beneficiary is an individual)

So far as C and D’s acquisition of A’s share of both properties is concerned, A’s gift should be an exempt transaction provided that C and D are individuals. The exemption for transfers for no chargeable consideration should apply. This means that C and D’s acquisition of A’s share would not be taxable or notifiable. So far as C’s acquisition of D’s share of property 1 and D’s acquisition of C’s share of property 2 are concerned, the position is a little less certain. As a minimum,

Where land is sold within four years of the death for a value below the death value, there is the option to substitute the sale price for the date of death value. Once the relief has been claimed on one sale, the sale price of all interests in estate land sold within the four-year period must be substituted for their respective death values. This includes those sold for more than the death value as well as those sold at a loss. The exception is property sold for a higher price in the fourth year, which is ignored. Consequently, if an overall gain is made from all such sales, the result is an increase in the estate’s total inheritance tax (IHT) liability

There cannot be a different price for goods dependent upon whether they are sold for cash or on credit. The origin of this rule goes back to the control orders days. These were economic provisions attempting to restrict the amount of consumer credit which was granted. One of the prohibitions was to require that a certain percentage of the price had to be paid as a deposit. In attempt to get around this, car dealers would