A Part 36 offer will no longer be capable of acceptance where: • a specified deadline for acceptance of the offer has passed • where a notice of withdrawal has been served on the offeree within the relevant period and the relevant period has expired, or • where a notice of acceptance has been served before the expiry of the relevant period, but the offeror obtains court permission to withdraw or change its terms An offeror should ensure

The tenant’s status It frequently happens that on expiry of a business tenancy the tenant remains in occupation without a new agreement having been entered into. Where Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954) has been validly excluded by contract, this occupation will in the first instance be either as a tenant at will or as a ‘tenant at sufferance’. If the landlord gives consent to the occupation it can no longer be said that there is a ‘tenancy at sufferance’. For example, a notice asserting that occupation is as a tenant at will plainly amounts to such consent. A tenancy at will is a precarious status. To bring it to an end does not require that notice be given

The Immigration Rules, Part 8, para 319E permit a dependant partner of relevant PBS migrant or Appendix W worker (the main applicant) to apply for indefinite leave to remain (ILR) in certain circumstances. Partners in this context are spouses, civil partners and unmarried or same-sex partners who can evidence they have lived with their partner for two years immediately prior to the application. The definition of a relevant a PBS migrant or Appendix W worker is defined in the Immigration Rules, Part 8, para 319AA. The definition includes someone with leave as a Tier 2 (Intra-Company Transfer) (ICT) migrant. However, the requirements in the Immigration Rules, Part 8, para 319E(b)–(c) state: ‘ … (b) The applicant must be the spouse or civil partner, unmarried or same-sex partner of a person who: (i) has indefinite leave to remain as a Relevant Points Based System Migrant or Appendix W Worker; or (ii) is, at the same time

We refer you to Practice Note: SRA Standards and Regulations—in-house lawyers, which confirms: ‘The Code for Solicitors prohibits any solicitor from personally holding client money unless they work in a regulated law firm, or in an organisation of a kind prescribed by the SRA, or, with certain restrictions, if they

When purchasing property (either freehold or leasehold, residential or commercial), usually a deposit is payable on exchange of contracts, which will be held by the seller’s solicitors as agent or stakeholder. If the deposit is held as agent for the seller, the seller’s solicitors can release the deposit to the seller at any time. This would usually be as soon as it has been paid. In contrast, where a deposit is held as stakeholder, the stakeholder can only pay the deposit to the person rightfully entitled to it. The money cannot be handed to either party without the consent of the other as the stakeholder is the agent of both parties. In residential transactions, the Standard Conditions of Sale (Fifth Edition) provides that the deposit will be held as stakeholder, save where the seller is purchasing another property in England and Wales. Similarly for commercial transactions, the Standard Commercial Property Conditions (Second Edition) provides that the

Testamentary capacity required to make a Will In order to make a valid Will, the testator must satisfy a capacity test on two separate occasions: • when they give instructions for the drafting of the Will or at the time it is written or typed out by the client themselves • at the time of executing the Will If there is no capacity at either time, the Will may be invalid. There are two tests that may be applied to determine testamentary capacity—the common law test established by the case of Banks v Goodfellow and the statutory test introduced by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005). Restriction on deputies to make a Will on behalf of P and the Court of Protection’s jurisdiction to make a Will on behalf

As indicated in the query, it is well established that a professional deputy may agree an annual gratuitous family care payment with P’s family to recognise the level of care provided to P which might otherwise be provided commercially. It is provided that: • the deputy has assessed the payment to be

The Mental Health (Hospital, Guardianship and Treatment) (England) Regulations 2008 (the Regulations), SI 2008/1184 are the principal regulations dealing with the procedural matters relating to compulsory treatment of persons who have a mental disorder under the Mental Health Act 1983 (MeHA 1983) as amended by the Mental Health Act 2007. Who can be appointed as the ‘nearest relative’? MeHA 1983, s 26 defines ‘relative’ and ‘nearest relative’. MeHA 1983, s 26(1) states that ‘relative’ means any of the following persons: • husband or wife [or civil partner] • son or daughter • father or mother • brother or sister • grandparent • grandchild • uncle or aunt, and • nephew or niece MeHA 1983, s 26(3) provides that the ‘nearest relative’ is the person first described in subsection (1) above who is for the time being surviving,

Assuming the prosecuting authorities seek to rely upon the evidence of the victim in proceedings against the original scammer to prove the existence of the scam/involvement of the scammer, there is no procedural or legal prohibition to putting forward the victim as a witness of truth. However, a prosecutor has a duty to disclose any previous convictions of prosecution witnesses where it meets the test for disclosure. The Attorney General’s Guidelines on Disclosure set out examples of material that are reasonably capable of meeting the test for disclosure. This includes ‘any material casting doubt on the reliability of a witness, eg previous convictions and cautions of any prosecution witnesses.’ The definition of 'bad character'

Permitted development rights and prior approval The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (GPDO), SI 2015/596 (as amended) provides that certain classes of development are ‘permitted development’ meaning that no express planning permission is required, instead permission is granted by the GPDO, SI 2015/596 and section 59 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990). A number of classes of permitted development require an application to be made to the local planning authority (LPA) for ‘prior approval’. Prior approval means that a developer has to seek approval from the LPA that specified elements of the development are acceptable before work can proceed. The matters for prior approval vary depending on the type of development and these are set out in the GPDO, SI 2015/596. An LPA cannot consider any other matters when determining a prior approval application. (See Paragraph: 026 Reference ID:

Financial contributions towards the cost of specific projects are often required to be paid to a local planning authority (LPA) by a developer in order to mitigate the adverse impacts of the development so as to allow planning permission to be granted. In this case, we have assumed that the payment of the financial contribution for the creation of the outdoor play space was secured pursuant to an agreement or undertaking made pursuant to section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990) (as amended) (section 106 obligation). LPA’s obligations when imposing financial contributions In order for obligations to pay financial contributions to be imposed when a planning application is being determined, the contribution has to meet strict legal tests

There is no general prohibition which would prevent a landowner who is a party to a section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 (HiA 1980) agreement from bringing a claim against the highway authority with whom the agreement was entered into, for breach of the latter’s covenants in the agreement. However, such a landowner should consider the following: • as a local authority, a highway authority’s ability to contract is restricted by its statutory powers and functions. Local authorities may not enter into agreements