A restrictive covenant will generally be extinguished where there is unity of seisin (eg of possession and ownership) between the land with the burden and the land with the benefit. It is necessary for both parcels of land to be held in fee simple. In Re Tiltwood, Sussex, Foster J citing the dictum of Lord Cross of Chelsea in Texaco Antilles Ltd v Kernochan (a Privy Council case), held that ‘where the fee simple of the benefited and the burdened land is vested in one person, the restrictive covenants are extinguished unless the common owner recreates them’. There are however exceptions to this rule. A relatively narrow exception is where the fee simple of the benefited

Some relevant factors are set out below. As explained in the Practice Note: Sponsoring a Skilled Worker ‘How is salary calculated’, as regards meeting the going rate requirement, a Skilled Worker’s intended salary will be pro-rated according to their intended working pattern (Immigration Rules Appendix Skilled Worker, para SW 14.4). However, salary cannot be pro-rated as regards meeting the applicable general threshold. The only relevant salary adjustments in the Immigration Rules for the general salary threshold are that: only the salary for the first 48 hours per week can count for these purposes

It is necessary to consider the wording of section 144 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (IHTA 1984). The relief from inheritance tax in IHTA 1984, s 144(2) for distributions from trusts settled by Will applies if the conditions in IHTA 1984, s 144(1) are met. The criteria in IHTA 1984, s 144(1) The conditions in IHTA 1984, s 144(1) are that: 'property comprised in a person's estate immediately before his death is settled by his Will and, within the period of two years after his death and before any interest in possession has subsisted in the property, there occurs; (a) an event on which tax would (apart from subsection (2)) be chargeable under

Section 27 of the Trustee Act 1925 (TA 1925) provides a means by which trustees of a settlement or a deceased’s personal representative may distribute the assets of the trust or estate respectively

Further information on the scope of section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) can be found in Practice Note: Transactions defrauding creditors—claims under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986. It is possible for a claim to be brought under IA 1986, s 423 against a company or individual for relief following a transaction at an undervalue (TUV) which was undertaken with the purpose of putting assets beyond the reach of a creditor(s). The criteria for bringing such a claim is set out in IA 1986, s 423. Although the basis for a claim is that there has been a TUV, there are key differences between a claim under IA 1986, s 423 and under the related IA

Section 82 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (CLRA 2002) enables an RTM company to serve an information notice on a third party, such as the landlord or the landlord’s managing agent, requesting information which it ‘reasonably requires for ascertaining the particulars required by or by virtue of section 80 to be included in a claim notice for claiming to acquire the right to manage the premises’ (the ‘information notice’). As such, this right is limited to information which the RTM company reasonably requires to be included in the claim notice. It extends only to information within the possession or control of the person served with the notice (CLRA 2002, s 82(1)(a)). The recipient of the information notice has 28 days to comply and provide the information

Section 96A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990) permits local planning authorities to make changes to planning permissions where the change is non-material. Only an applicant with an interest in the land to which

Defining the planning unit The courts use the concept of the planning unit to determine the area of land to be considered when identifying the primary use of land (and its ancillary uses), and whether any material change of use has occurred. In addition, local planning authorities taking enforcement action against a breach of planning control need to determine the extent of the planning unit to establish whether there has been an unauthorised change of use. Practice Note: Defining the planning unit explains the tests to distinguish between separate planning units, including identifying the unit of occupation, sole primary use, geographical separation, composite uses, similarity of

Section 1140 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) provides for serving documents on directors, secretaries or other specific individuals contained within CA 2006, s 1140(2)(c). This was created as an alternative service method to the ones provided under the Civil Procedure Rules 1988 (CPR 1998), SI 1998/3132. It would ordinarily be required by CPR 1998, SI 1998/3132 to serve a company at its registered address or any place of business within the jurisdiction that has a real connection with the claim. Under CA 2006, s 1140, a document is deemed to be served on a person to which this section applies by leaving it at, or

Part 6 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955 contains the core provisions regarding service in family proceedings, although note that specific provisions in any other part of FPR 2010, other legislation or practice directions may overrule the general provisions, as can a direction of the court in a particular matter. There are specific rules for the service of applications for matrimonial orders and these are set out in chapter 2 of FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, Pt 6 (FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, 6.3–6.22) and in the supporting FPR 2010, PD 6A. Pursuant to FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, 6.9 an applicant may make a request to the court officer for personal service by the court bailiff. Such an application will only be considered where the address for service is in England and Wales and, normally, where postal

It is not clear from the question what sort of easement has been granted for the benefit of the dominant land. It might be a positive easement, ie a right to do something on the servient land such as a right of way or a right to install drainage pipes under the servient land and to drain waste water through pipes so installed or it could be a negative easement whereby the dominant owner has the right to receive something from the servient land without the servient owner interfering with or restricting that something, which could be light, support, or the flow of water from the mains through pipes running under the servient land. Whichever

A personal injury trust is characterised by the source of its capital awarded to the claimant. If the trust is funded by an award of compensation for a personal injury to the claimant, then it is a personal injury trust. For further guidance on 'what is a personal injury trust', see Commentaries: What exactly is a personal injury trust: APIL Personal Injury and Introduction to personal injury trusts: Encyclopaedia of Forms and Precedents [176]. A