The terms of a lease govern the relationship between the landlord and tenant, and any modification to those terms, such as a change of use, should be formally documented. Nevertheless, a distinction needs to be drawn between a personal concession and a variation. In the case of the former, consent for a change of use which applies only to the assignee

FORTHCOMING CHANGES: At Budget 2025 on 26 November 2025, the government announced that it would make minor corrective amendments to the residence-based tax regime introduced in Finance Act 2025. Key points include: • qualifying new residents for the foreign income and gains (FIG) regime must be at least ten years old at the beginning of the tax year • ensuring that claims for relief under the FIG regime can be deducted only from the foreign income, foreign employment income or foreign gains to which they relate • alignment of the qualifying asset holding company (QAHC) rules so that carried-interest-style returns connected with services to a QAHC qualify for relief under the FIG regime • correction to the capital gains tax (CGT) residence test for personal representatives to ensure that they are not UK resident where the deceased was UK non-resident but was a long-term UK resident for inheritance tax purposes • the requirement that an individual must file a tax return where they are not entitled to the annual

Pension analysis: Chief Master Shuman granted rectification of two pension scheme deeds that had inadvertently introduced and then repeated a Courage-type fetter preventing the breaking of the final salary link. Applying Mitchells & Butlers, the court found a continuing subjective common intention to carry out consolidation or housekeeping exercises, not to confer enhanced benefit protection, and accepted that the 2012 deed was a serial rectification case. The decision illustrates the evidential weight of explanatory materials, trustee records, drafting history and commercial context in pensions rectification claims. It also reinforces the court’s willingness to dispose of clear drafting errors proportionately, without requiring exhaustive investigation where the balance of probabilities is plainly satisfied. Produced in partnership with James McCreath of Wilberforce Chambers.

Until 2008, it was standard practice for married couples to include in their Wills a discretionary trust of the nil rate band (NRB) to avoid it being wasted where the estate would otherwise pass to the surviving spouse with the benefit of the spouse exemption (and perhaps any children were too young to inherit outright). This is less common since 2008 because of the facility to transfer any unused NRB to a surviving spouse’s estate. There are still many such trusts in existence that were created prior to 2008 and which will need to remain in place until the death of the surviving spouse if they are to achieve the inheritance

A clause preventing or discouraging a beneficiary from going to court to contest a trust.

The general rule, set out in section 48(3)(a) of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (IHTA 1984), is that property comprised in a settlement is excluded property if it is non-UK situs and the settlor was neither domiciled in the UK nor deemed domiciled when the property became comprised in the settlement. The settlor’s domicile must be tested on each occasion on which property becomes comprised in the settlement. This

In answering this Q&A we have assumed the following: • that the trust and the company in question are both resident outside the UK for UK tax purposes • that the trust’s shareholding in the company constitutes an interest in a close company within the meaning of paragraph 2(1) of Part 1 of Schedule A1 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (IHTA 1984) • that the residential property in question constitutes a UK residential property interest within the meaning of IHTA 1984, Sch A1, Pt 1, para 8 • that the trust has made a loan to the company, which is still outstanding Valuation of A’s shareholding IHTA 1984,

The fact that a building is a house or flat (ie designed wholly for residential purposes) does not prevent it falling within the scheme of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954). If the property comprised in the relevant tenancy ‘includes premises which are occupied… for the purposes of a business’ (LTA 1954, s 23(1)), and that business activity is a significant purpose of the occupation and not merely incidental to any residential use (see eg Cheryl Investments Ltd v Saldanha), the letting properly

Local Government analysis: In an unusual case, in which there appears to have been failures on both sides to most effectively advance their cases, the High Court, in a non-citeable judgment, helpfully restates the law in relation to licensing appeals, clearly explaining that a de novo hearing is to be decided on the basis of the information available at that appeal hearing and as at that date (and not reviewing the decision under appeal as at the date of the original decision) before going on to restate, and give a useful commentary on, the law in relation to the application of, and provisions for departure from, policy. Written by David Wilson, licensing consultant at A2Z Licensing.

Any obligations in relation to confidential information will endure for as long as that information remains confidential. Accordingly, if the information was not confidential to start with or has ceased to be confidential, then it is unlikely that a Court will uphold undertakings in relation to it. A non-disclosure agreement (NDA) is intended to protect a party’s confidential information. Generally, an NDA requires a party receiving that information: • not to disclose the information to any other party, and • (quite often) not to use the information other than for a particular purpose In considering whether information received under an NDA can be disclosed by the receiving party,

Part 7 of the Charities Act 2011 (CA 2011) makes provision in relation to dispositions of land involving charities. CA 2011, s 117 provides that no land which is held by or in trust for a charity is to be disposed of without an order of the court or the Charity Commission. However, CA 2011 provides for numerous exceptions to this rule. CA 2011, ss 119–121 contain other restrictions on dispositions of land involving charities, which vary according to the nature of the disposition (for example, in the case of the granting of a lease, according to the length of the term of the lease). CA 2011, s 122(1)–(2) provides that a ‘conveyance, transfer,

A non-molestation order is an order granted pursuant to section 42 of the Family Law Act 1996 prohibiting a person (‘the respondent’) from molesting another person who is associated with the respondent or from molesting a relevant child. The order may be expressed so as to refer to molestation in general, or to particular acts of molestation, or to both, and may be made for a specified period or until further order. A person who, without reasonable excuse, does anything that they are prohibited from doing by a non-molestation order is guilty of a criminal offence. The Crown Prosecution Service may therefore decide to prosecute the case in the event that