The usual remedy available to a landlord for breach of a keep open clause will be damages, rather than an injunction, specific performance or forfeiture. The courts are generally unwilling to police compliance of keep open clauses, as they consider forcing a tenant to comply with this obligation would be more onerous and costly than any damage caused to the landlord. In Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd v Argyll Stores

This Q&A addresses whether a Law of Property Act (LPA) receiver is entitled to serve a section 42 notice for a lease extension, and to then assign the benefit of that notice to a purchaser. Under section 109 of the Law of Property Act 1925, the LPA/fixed charge receiver is: • deemed to be agent of the mortgagor (not the mortgagee), and • has the power to exercise any powers which may have been delegated to them by the mortgagee (ie under the mortgagee’s statutory power or powers under the mortgage) For further reading, see: • Practice Note: Effect of appointment of LPA or fixed charge receiver on property • Commentary: Powers of receiver: Fisher and Lightwood's Law of Mortgage [28.10] • Commentary: Right to appoint receivers over mortgaged property: Property Insolvency [10.64] Accordingly, there may be scope for considering

The off-payroll IR35 regime applies to engagements under which: • an individual personally performs (or is obligated to personally perform) services for an end client • the services are not provided pursuant to a direct contract between the individual and the end client but under arrangements involving a third party (ie an intermediary) • the end client is either a public authority or, from 6 April 2021, a medium or large private sector entity that has a UK connection • the circumstances are such that if the services were provided under a direct contract between the individual and the end client, the individual would be regarded as an employee or office holder of the end client for income tax and/or NICs purposes (or, if the individual is already an office holder of the end client, the services relate to that office), and • the intermediary meets certain conditions (see below) The intermediary—conditions Section 61N of the Income Tax (Earnings and

A Mesher order (per Mesher v Mesher and Hall) is a deferred order made in the context of financial remedy proceedings for the sale of an asset such as the family home, with various triggers being put in place for the sale. This will commonly be on the death of the occupier, their remarriage, their permanent vacation of the property, or on the youngest child reaching a particular age, often 18 or completing full time secondary education, whichever is the later. This mechanism allows for one party to remain living in the property for a period of time, and will often take place where that party has no other means of housing themselves and the children,

The Carltona principle allows for decisions to be made by civil servants within the same department on behalf of the minister. See Carltona Ltd v Commissioners of Works and Others , Commentary: The Carltona principle and delegation of functions: Halsbury's Laws of England [162]. and Practice Note: The executive and the civil service. This does not equate to a delegation of powers. The decision remains that of the minister,

This Q&A assumes that the term ‘nominations agreement’refers to a land-linked deed connected to a particular site or affordable units (often alongside a section 106 package) giving the council nomination rights to those units and/or imposing related obligations (rather than an operational local authority or registered provider agreement about nomination rights to vacancies across the provider’s stock). This question concerns the interplay between the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 (LG(MP)A 1982) and the Local Land Charges Act 1975 (LLCA 1975). Generally, if A enters into a covenant with B affecting the use of land, it is enforceable as a matter of privity of contract. As soon as either A or B transfers the interest held in the land, as between the respective landowners that privity no longer exists. The starting point is that the burden of a positive covenant will not usually run (Rhone and another v Stephens [1994]

CPR 20.2(2)(a) defines an additional claim as any claim other than the claim by the claimant against the defendant and is distinguished from a counterclaim, which is a claim by the defendant against the claimant or against the claimant and some other person. An additional claim could be a claim for a contribution or indemnity against the third party (E) or some other related claim. CPR 20.3(1) provides that an additional claim is treated as if it were a claim for the purposes of the rules, with some exclusions. Where an additional claim is brought, there are, in effect, two claims: C’s claim against D, and D’s claim against E. There are no proceedings between C and E, though if D’s

Part 36 comprises a self-contained procedural code about offers to settle made pursuant to its procedure (CPR 36.1). The courts have repeatedly held that, as a result, it is to the rules set out in that Part that regard must be had, and it is doubted that contractual provisions (such as, for example, concepts of mistake) will apply: Gibbon v Manchester City Council. The parties by electing to use the Part 36 procedure opt into that self-contained code. They are able to make offers outside of Part 36, to which ordinary contractual provisions will apply. The underlying policy, per Gibbon, is certainty. The form and content

Part 36 offers are not limited to purely financial claims or offers to settle A Part 36 offer is an offer to settle a claim or intended claim (or a part thereof) which, if compliant with the provisions of CPR 36, carries with it certain costs consequences if and when it is accepted. The costs consequences depend on whether the offer is accepted within or outside the 'Relevant Period', defined in CPR 36.3(g), which is a period of not less than 21 days from the making of the offer (or if the offer is made less than 21 days before trial starts, then until the end of the trial). If not accepted at all it may carry costs consequences under CPR 36, dependent on what happens at an ultimate trial or summary disposal of the claim, provided that the offer has not been withdrawn. While Part 36 offers are generally made in relation to monetary claims they are not limited to this and could be used in other situations eg when

Part 36 offers—general A party makes a Part 36 offer with a view to settling the dispute and potentially to obtaining some costs protection. Any party may make a Part 36 offer, including the appellant and respondent on an appeal. These offers are typically made in monetary claims, and therefore, often include exclusively monetary terms. For further guidance, see: Part 36 offers—overview. The requirements for a valid Part 36 offer are set out in CPR 36.5, that it must: • be in writing • make clear that it is made pursuant to Part 36 • specify a ‘relevant period’ of acceptance • state what it relates to,and • state whether it takes into account any counter claim For general guidance on valid offers, see Practice Note: Part 36 offers—how to make a valid Part 36 offer and Making a Part 36 offer—checklist. Inclusion of non-monetary terms in Part 36 offers Provided that the Part 36

CPR 36 is a self-contained procedural code about offers to settle made pursuant to its terms (CPR 36.1(1)). It contains various rules as to the making of offers which have particular consequences if accepted or if bettered at trial. It does not apply to small claims (CPR 27.2(1)(g)), but otherwise applies to claims, counterclaims and additional claims (CPR 36.2(3)(a)). Separate provisions within CPR 36 apply to RTA Protocol and EL/PL Protocol claims. The requirements as to the form and content of a Part 36 offer are set out in CPR 36.5. CPR 36.5(4)

The notice is assumed to have been correctly served. Party Wall Act notices The Party Wall etc Act 1996 (PWA 1996) enables an owner of a property to serve on their neighbour a notice, where there is planned work on or around the line of junction between the properties. The notice gives various rights to the building owner. The adjoining owner may agree, do nothing, or (in some cases) serve a counter-notice and PWA 1996 gives the adjoining owner