This response considers the principles of private nuisance, and whether a security light shining onto someone’s private land could constitute a private nuisance. Private nuisance is an interference with the use or enjoyment of land, or of some right over or in connection with it. The nuisance is usually continuous, and is also indirect. It is distinct from trespass which involves a direct interference with someone’s right to exclusive possession of land. When determining whether there has been an impairment of the enjoyment of land, the governing principle is that of the ‘reasonable user’. If a claimant is being unusually sensitive to a petty annoyance that another person would disregard, they are unlikely to be successful. The Court will also take into account factors including the locality

This Q&A assumes that the person coming to the UK as a visitor is not an employee of either the UK-based company or the company in their home country. Visitors must not intend to work in the UK, as set out in Practice Note: Visitors: prohibited and permitted activities: ‘The Immigration Rules, Appendix V: Visitor contains a specific definition of work which is not contained in the Immigration Rules, Introduction. Unless it is work of a type expressly permitted in the Immigration Rules Appendix Visitor: Permitted Activities, Immigration Rules Appendix Visitor: Permit Free Festivals or the Permitted Paid Engagements in Immigration Rules Appendix V: Visitor, para V 13.3 (as these apply in the context of the eligibility requirements the visitor meets), prohibited work includes: being employed in the UK carrying out work for an organisation

In answering this Q&A, we have assumed that the person in question is a UK resident and domiciled person carrying on a sole trade (ie not in partnership) wholly within the UK. We have also assumed that the person in question is not using the cash basis. There are two fundamental questions to answer when considering whether an expense is deductible in calculating the profits of a person’s trade: • is the expenditure capital in nature, and • assuming it is not

An individual who has been sexually harassed potentially has a claim under the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010) and/or under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (PHA 1997). Equality Act 2010—protection against harassment Harassment is prohibited under EqA 2010. Protection against standard harassment is provided where an individual is subjected to: • unwanted conduct • that is related to a ‘relevant protected characteristic’ that they have, and • the unwanted conduct has the purpose or effect of: ◦ violating their dignity, or ◦ creating an environment that is intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive to them The ‘relevant protected characteristics’ for these purposes are: • age • disability • gender reassignment • race • religion or belief • sex, and • sexual orientation There is separate protection against conduct which is of a sexual nature. This type of harassment does not need in any way to 'relate to' a protected characteristic. It occurs where: • the perpetrator engages in conduct

Summary The mere fact of planning permission will not automatically prevent principal private residence (PPR) from being available however, it may be relevant in determining whether the owner purchased the property with a view to realising a profit on the sale of some or all of it. In that case, PPR would not be available. Analysis PPR relief can only be claimed in relation to the taxpayer's only or main residence. The question whether a house is the only or main residence of a taxpayer for the purpose of section 222(1)(a) of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 (TCGA 1992) is in substance one of fact. If the owner of the enhanced dwelling occupies it as their only or main residence, principal private residence relief (PPR relief) from capital gains tax should apply to any gain made on a disposal of it. For information on PPR relief

The answer to this query depends on the specific wording of the sale contract and whether a special condition dealt with VAT in a manner inconsistent with the Standard Commercial Property Conditions (second edition) (SCPC). The contract If a contract expressly states that the purchase price is exclusive of VAT, and provides that the buyer must pay any VAT chargeable, then if VAT was chargeable, the buyer would usually have to pay the purchase price plus VAT. The position is less clear in the absence of such express provision and the seller cannot

Offer, acceptance, and invitation to treat Whether a seller can refuse to honour an incorrect price depends on whether a contract has been formed. The display of goods on a website is generally considered an invitation to treat, meaning that a consumer placing an order constitutes an offer, and the seller’s acceptance occurs at a later stage; although the time at which acceptance takes place can be complicated and the seller may have accepted the consumer’s offer before the seller realises that the price is incorrect. See: LNB News 21/03/2003 41 for an example of such difficulties. The timing of acceptance can be critical, as a contract may be formed before the seller realises the pricing error. For example, online terms and conditions often specify that a contract is formed when a confirmation email is sent to the consumer. See clause 4 of Precedent: Online terms and conditions for the supply of goods—business-to-consumer for an example. To mitigate risks, sellers should structure their contract formation process

Warranties provided by a seller in a share purchase agreement (SPA) are typically made subject to a number of limitations. These limitations will usually include specific limitations in respect of the buyer’s knowledge. Typically, a seller will seek to exclude from a warranty claim those facts, matters or circumstances: • specified in the disclosure letter or identifiable from the content of the data room, and • known [or which ought reasonably to have been known, if reasonable

Warranties provided by a seller in a share purchase agreement (SPA) are typically made subject to a number of limitations. These limitations will usually include specific limitations in respect of the buyer’s knowledge. Typically, a seller will seek to exclude from a warranty claim those facts, matters or circumstances: • specified in the disclosure letter or identifiable from the content of the data room, and • known (or which ought reasonably to have been known, if reasonable enquiry

This Q&A refers to a general partnership to which Partnership Act 1890 (PA 1890) applies (not an LLP) and a simple agreement (not a deed). In the context of contract law, 'authority' is the power an agent has to affect the legal relations of its principal. Where such authority exists, the agent will have the power to bind the principal to contract. Where such authority is absent, or the relevant act is outside the scope of the relevant authority, the contract will not be binding upon the principal. See Practice Note: Forming enforceable contracts—agent's authority to contract. As a general partnership is not a separate legal entity a partnership cannot of itself make contracts. Any contract with a partnership is with the partners

This response considers: • the individual’s rights under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULR(C)A 1992) not to be refused membership by a trade union • an overview of the general considerations involved in establishing a trade union, in particular relating to independence, and • the protection from detriment or dismissal by the employer Right not to be refused membership Under TULR(C)A 1992, s 174, an individual may only be excluded (ie refused membership) or expelled from a trade union where: • they do not satisfy an enforceable membership requirement in the union’s rules, or • they do not qualify for membership because the union only operates in a particular part of Great Britain, or • they are not employed by a particular employer, in the case of a union which exists to regulate relations between its members and a particular employer (or particular associated employers), or • the exclusion or expulsion is wholly or mainly attributable to their conduct, where that conduct

The statutory right to renew a business tenancy arises under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954). LTA 1954, s 43(1)(b) states that LTA 1954, Pt II does not apply to 'a tenancy created by a mining lease’. LTA 1954, s 46 ascribes the same meaning to 'mining lease' as is given by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 (LTA 1927). LTA 1927, s 25(1) defines a mining lease as ‘a lease for any mining purpose or purposes connected therewith,