Under section 19 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA 2000) (the general prohibition) a person cannot carry out a regulated activity, or purport to carry out a regulated activity in the UK unless they are either: • an authorised person, or • an exempt person Activities that are specified as regulated activities are set out in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001 (SI 2001/544) (RAO). For more information about the carrying of regulated activities generally, see Practice Note: What are regulated activities? Of particular relevance to this Q&A

Duty to make reasonable adjustments The duty to make reasonable adjustments (referred to below simply as 'the duty') comprises three requirements, which are set out in section 20 of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010). The element that is common to all three requirements is that they will only apply where a disabled person is put at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a 'relevant matter' in comparison with persons who are not disabled. The distinction between the three requirements is that each one contemplates a different cause of that substantial disadvantage: • the first requirement applies where a 'provision, criterion or practice' applied by or on behalf of the person subject to the

A nominee who holds the legal title to land as bare trustee for the trustee (or trustees) of a pension scheme would hold that land on a trust of land. The equitable interest would be held by the pension scheme trustee, who would hold that equitable interest on the terms of the pension scheme trust deed and rules. If the sole nominee were to sell the legal title, the purchaser would take the property subject to the underlying equitable interests and

Charitable Incorporated Organisations (CIOs) were introduced by the Charities Act 2011 (CA 2011) and are governed by the provisions therein, together with various regulations made under CA 2011. A CIO is a body corporate but does not fall within the regulatory sphere of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006). An advantage of a CIO is that it has legal personality, meaning that it can buy and sell land and enter into contracts, amongst other things, in its own right and name. This has the benefit that

For the purposes of this Q&A we assume that the charity purpose is among other things, the provision of housing. Interpretation of a restrictive covenant depends on the factual context, and on the construction of the whole document containing the covenant. In Tendler v Sproule, the tenant agreed to use the premises as a ‘private dwelling-house only’. Lord Justice Morton held at para [194] that: ‘the taking in of two paying lodgers is a breach of a covenant “not to use the said premises or any part thereof for any business.” I think also that it is a breach of the covenant to keep the premises “as a private dwelling-house only.”’ This approach is

A release of an easement should be made by deed to be effective at common law. It may be possible to enforce a simple agreement, but this is likely to

The Financial Collateral Arrangements (No 2) Regulations 2003, SI 2003/3226 (as amended) came into force on 26 December 2003 and have no retrospective effect. In the absence of registration of a pre-26 December 2003 deed as a charge at Companies House, the rent deposit deed will be void for non-registration. However, the landlord may be able to rely on the contractual terms of the deed itself to deduct sums owed to him by the tenant before returning the surplus (if any) to the tenant company’s

It is fairly common that a covenant requiring that a property be used for private residential purposes, or for a single private residence, will be found in leases or by way of restrictive covenant. The scope and extent of such a covenant will depend upon its precise wording. Covenants often provide that the property must be used only as a dwellinghouse, a private dwellinghouse or a single private dwellinghouse. 'Private residential purposes' is likely to be construed as being synonymous with use as a private dwellinghouse. Generally, where the covenant does not provide that the use must be in the occupation of the lessee, this will not prohibit the letting of the property, provided that such letting is not merely transient (such as for AirBnB lettings for example):

The tax treatment of a revocable appointment out of an interest in possession trust pre-2006 will depend on the precise terms of the original trust document and the appointment itself, as well as the powers relied on by the trustees making the original appointment. A power of appointment or advancement over settled property may be exercised in such a way that no beneficiary becomes absolutely entitled to

A right to forfeit gives the landlord an option to exercise any right they may have to determine the lease. The right to forfeit must either: • be provided for as an express term of the lease; for example, the lease may provide, in a re-entry or forfeiture clause, that the landlord is entitled to forfeit the lease due to specified breaches of covenant (for example, failure to pay rent within 14 or 21 days of the due date), or on the occurrence of a specific event detailed in the lease (for example any type of insolvency specified as an event giving rise to the right to forfeiture), or • (if there is no express provision in the lease) have arisen due to a breach by the tenant of an express or implied

The term ‘bare trust’ applies to an arrangement where the legal ownership of property is in different hands to that of the beneficial ownership and the person(s) beneficially entitled to the property have absolute rights to both capital and income. A bare trust may be used or arise in a variety of situations, such as where assets are held for minor children (not subject to an age contingency), where the beneficial interest in land is held for more than four individuals, where investments are held by a nominee etc. As a bare trust arrangement

This Q&A raises the issue of the competing rights of neighbours in the enjoyment of their land. In particular it raises the circumstances in which the law of nuisance and of trespass will regulate their conduct. The tort of nuisance is an invasion of the claimant's interest in the possession and enjoyment of land. Unlike the tort of negligence, it can arise even where the defendant has taken all reasonable steps to avoid it. It also differs from negligence in that the claimant must have a right of exclusive possession over the land said to be affected, be it as a freeholder or a lessee (see: Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd). Like negligence however, it must be shown that the damage of which complaint