The grant of an easement does not give the owner of the dominant land exclusive use of the servient land as against the servient owner. To grant exclusive and unrestricted use which amounts to the whole beneficial use of the land would be to confer ownership of the land onto the grantee, conferring rights that go beyond those conferred by the granting of an easement, and so any such right

We have assumed that the easement to be varied is a legal easement expressly granted by deed. The parties to a deed of easement may agree between themselves to vary that easement and any variation should also be documented by deed. If the servient and/or dominant land is registered at HM Land Registry, the deed of variation should also be registered; see HM Land Registry Practice Guide 68: amending deeds that effect dispositions of registered land. See Commentary: Variation of easements: Encyclopaedia of Forms and Precedents [1180]. See also Precedent: Deed—variation of easement by release of existing easement and grant of new easement—grantor’s

The Care Act 2014 (CA 2014) requires a local authority to assess an individual’s need for care and support. A local authority (LA) has the right to make charges for services assessed as being required including nursing home fees provided as a result of a care and support needs assessment. Regulations and guidance govern the process of assessments for the purposes of charging. See Chapter 8 and 9 of the Care and support statutory guidance. Once the LA has placed the assessed person in accommodation, the assessed person is responsible for paying the fees. The LA can charge for the accommodation on a standard rate based on the type of care provided. The person placed in residential care will have their income and capital calculated and will be expected to make payments from this towards the cost of the care home. An individual’s beneficial interest in any home

It is assumed that the worker is not an irregular hours or part-year worker. For information generally on: • the right under the Working Time Regulations 1998 (WTR 1998), SI 1998/1833 to statutory paid annual leave, see Practice Note: Statutory paid holiday—the right • the right under WTR 1998, SI 1998/1833 to carry over statutory paid annual leave entitlement, see Practice Note: Statutory paid holiday—carry-over • the separate provisions that apply in respect of irregular hours and part-year workers, see Practice Note: Statutory paid holiday—irregular hours workers and

For further information about maternity leave, generally, see Practice Note: Maternity leave. Subject to an earlier start being triggered where childbirth occurs, an employee’s ordinary maternity leave (OML) period starts with the earlier of: • the date she notified to her employer as her intended maternity leave start date under a standard notice or, if she varied that date, the last date she notified (in either case the date specified cannot be a date earlier than the beginning of the eleventh week before the expected week of childbirth (EWC)) (see the Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999 (MAPLE 1999), SI 1999/3312, regs 4(1), 4(1A), 4(2)(b), 6(1)(a)), or • the day which follows the first day the employee is absent from work

The question asks whether an employee can attend a disciplinary hearing during the period of layoff. Insofar as that is asking whether there is anything specifically preventing an employee from attending, the answer is no. It may be that their attendance creates complications as to their entitlement to any guarantee payments, or their rights under the somewhat complex provisions relating to the entitlement to a statutory redundancy payment in circumstances of layoff (see Practice Note: Redundancy payments for lay-offs and short-time). However, these would not prevent them from attending a disciplinary meeting if they wish to do so. Perhaps the more interesting question, though, is whether an employee can be obliged to attend a disciplinary meeting when they are on lay-off. As we cannot find any authority in relation to this issue, this answer is based on

The answer to this question requires considering how an employee may become entitled to a statutory and/or a contractual redundancy payment and the impact of the law relating to implied terms. An employee will be entitled to a statutory redundancy payment if they have been continuously employed for not less than two years and are dismissed by reason of redundancy. The formula for calculating a statutory redundancy payment is based on the employee’s age, number of years’ continuous service and weekly pay, and is subject to a statutory cap. For further information, see Practice Note: Entitlement to statutory redundancy payment. In general, an employer cannot contract

Where an employee is suspended from work, eg during an investigation into alleged misconduct, he will usually be entitled to receive his full pay during the suspension period. In circumstances where the employee is not having to do any work, the employer may resent having to pay the employee and may seek to require him to take some of his paid holiday entitlement instead. This Q&A examines the extent to which this is possible. Notice requirements for holiday leave An employer may require a worker to take his statutory holiday entitlement on particular days by giving him notice. The employer's notice must be given twice as many days in advance of the start of the leave's duration. The employer does not have give this notice in writing, although it is preferable to do so for evidential reasons. For further information, see Practice Note: Holiday—When

An employee benefit trust (EBT) is a discretionary trust which means that it is a trust for a class of beneficiaries as opposed to individuals. Typically, EBTs are set up to fall within the definition of an ‘employees’ share scheme’ in section 1166 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006). This provides exemptions from certain company law requirements which will normally otherwise apply. For further information, see Practice Note: The Companies Act definition of employees' share scheme and its implications. CA 2006, s 1166 defines an ‘employees’ share scheme’ as ‘a scheme for encouraging or facilitating

There are two issues that need to be considered when it comes to whether an employee can bring a breach for contract claim purely on the basis of a breach of the implied duty of trust and confidence: • the first is whether an existing employee can pursue a claim for breach of contract against their current employer based solely on the implied duty of trust and confidence, and if so • the second, on a practical level, is whether such a claim can be pursued in the employment tribunal, the High Court/County Court, or both In relation to the first enquiry, there is no doubt, on authority, that an employee can bring a claim for breach of contract that is based solely on

In the section of Practice Note: Employee handbooks entitled Contractual force, we say: ‘It is generally a good idea for policies such as disciplinary procedures to expressly state that they are not intended to have contractual force, to avoid employees trying to prolong their employment by claiming that they are entitled to have the procedure followed before they can be dismissed for

For further information about constructive dismissal, see generally Practice Note: Constructive dismissal. An employee is potentially constructively dismissed in circumstances where the employer behaves in such a way as to entitle the employee to resign and to claim that they have effectively been dismissed as a result of the employer’s bad conduct. There are three essential requirements for a constructive dismissal: • there must be an actual or anticipatory breach of contract by the employer which is a fundamental or repudiatory breach, ie one that goes to the root of the contract so as to be sufficiently serious to justify the employee's resignation • the employee must resign in response to the breach, rather than for some other reason • the employee must not delay too long in terminating the contract in response to the employer's breach, otherwise the employee may be regarded as having elected to affirm