This Q&A assumes that the lease was disclaimed by a liquidator for the insolvent tenant. When a lease is disclaimed, the rights, interests and liabilities of the insolvent company end, but the disclaimer does not affect the rights or liabilities of any other person (except so far as is necessary for the purpose of releasing the company from any liability) (section 178(4) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986)). Accordingly, where there is a mortgage the lease is deemed to continue to exist in order to give effect to the mortgagee's rights. However, while the landlord is not entitled to treat the lease as ended, it is likely that the tenant

If a lease does not contain any express restriction on use, the tenant can use the premises for any lawful purpose which he chooses. In this Q&A, the lease contains a covenant that the premises can only be used as a dwellinghouse in the occupation of a single family. In fact, it is much more likely that the covenant would have been phrased as a negative covenant ie not to use the premises save as a single private residence only. The breach of such a covenant will be a continuing breach ie the covenant is broken from day-to-day so long as the prohibited use continues. This is in distinction to a breach of a covenant against subletting, which is a once and for all breach.

Breach of covenant Consideration will need to be given to which covenant(s) in the lease have been breached by the tenant subletting to a person who is not over 55 and is causing a nuisance. The likely clauses will be the: • user covenant • alienation covenant • tenant’s covenant not to cause nuisance—this covenant is based on the tort of private nuisance—interference with the use/enjoyment of land causing injury (some private nuisance may also give rise to a statutory nuisance) in respect of which to determine accountability for an alleged nuisance, the court will look at the nature of the defendant’s interference (intentional, negligent or reckless for instance), the extent of the interference (it must be substantial), and the reasonableness of the defendant’s conduct Assuming that there has been a breach of one or more of these covenants, the landlord will have

Status of the occupier The status of the occupier will come down to the lease vs licence issue. For further information on this issue see Distinction between lease and licence: Hill and Redman's Law of Landlord and Tenant (Division A), 290. We note that the occupier is a 'life tenant' of the trust. Accordingly, we assume that their life tenancy relates to the trust rather than the terms of their occupation of the premises. However, if the trustees have also purported to provide the occupier

Law360: Demonstrating both increased cross-border collaboration and the adoption of novel theories of cartel violations, the European Commission and the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), together with the US competition agencies, the US Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission, issued a joint statement on 23 July 2024 on competition in generative artificial intelligence (AI) foundation models and AI products.

Law360: Since they were established with the passage of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act in 2010, the whistleblower programs at the US Securities and Exchange Commission and the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission have emerged as the gold standard for whistleblower award programs.

Law360, Expert analysis: The Financial Ombudsman Service, or FOS, periodically publishes statistics on complaints it has received about financial services and products provided by UK regulated firms, with the last publication appearing on 29 October 2025. Emma Radmore, legal director and Laura Wiles, solicitor; both at Womble Bond Dickinson discuss how subsequent measures, alongside broader consultations on updating the redress framework, have resulted in notable shifts in complaint volumes and trends, particularly a marked reduction in low-quality referrals from professional representatives.

Immigration analysis: Gary McIndoe, solicitor at Latitude Law, provides insight and top tips on the EU settlement scheme. In particular, he discusses the recent developments around the scheme and what both applicants and practitioners should be aware of.

Law360, Expert analysis: On 15 March 2024, the Council of the EU published the updated text amending the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (AIFMD 2.0), which governs European managers of hedge funds, private equity funds, private debt funds, real estate funds and other alternative investment funds. Juliette Mills, associate and Alix Prentice, partner at Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP, provide insights to the revised AIFMD 2.0. In particular, this article looks at loan-originating alternative investment funds against a backdrop of growing regulatory focus on non-banking financial institutions (NBFIs), and how loan-originating alternative investment funds fit in to the universe of NBFIs.

Law360, London: Julian Assange's blockbuster plea deal, which allowed the Wikileaks founder to walk free from prison, the first fine imposed by Britain's sanctions' enforcer over Russia and a landmark ruling on criminal liability in supply chains are just a few of the key cases from 2024.

In this Q&A it has been assumed that the parties were not married and there was no order or agreement as to parental responsibility. The Q&A considers three points: • whether it is possible to change the birth certificate of someone who is over the age of 18 so as to remove the name of someone who was named as the father, but who has discovered he is not the biological father • whether the man incorrectly named as the father (the named man) has parental responsibility for the child who

Property Disputes analysis: The Upper Tribunal has held that a Tribunal-appointed manager cannot be an accountable person within the meaning of section 72 of the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA 2022). That was the straightforward interpretation of BSA 2022. It is clear from the statute that orders appointing managers that post-date the coming into force of BSA 2022 cannot impose on managers the building safety risk functions of an accountable person found in BSA 2022, Pt 4. However, in relation to existing management orders, insofar as the order imposes on the manager building safety risk functions found in Part 4, that order remains valid and enforceable in addition to the obligations of the accountable person. The consequence is that in such cases there will be an overlap in functions between the manager and the accountable person unless and until that order expires or is varied. Written by Miriam Seitler, a barrister at Landmark Chambers.