Blog Archives

ILN Today Post

Important safety checks required following Grenfell Tower fire

The announcement by prime minister Theresa May on 28 June 2017 that the cladding used at Grenfell Tower did not comply with Building Regulations is a worrying development in this tragic saga.  How defective cladding came to be installed in circumstances where the public rightfully expect construction works to be properly carried out and certified will no doubt be the subject of the public inquiry in due course.

At issue is a type of cladding made of Aluminium Composite Material (ACM).  Although ACM cladding is not of itself dangerous, it is important to ensure that the correct type of cladding has been used and/or only used on buildings of a certain height.

Read More

Read full article

Who owns the equity? Investment property ownership when relationships break down

The thorny issue of a couple’s beneficial interests in a jointly owned property following relationship breakdown has once again been examined by the court, this time relating to a Privy Council decision on appeal from the Bahamian Court of Appeal.  The case concerned the relationship between Mr Marr and Mr Collie, who together had jointly purchased several properties over the years in the Bahamas during their 17 year relationship.

Read full article
ILN Today Post

Lease or licence – why you should care

It is common for heads of terms to refer to a licence to use or occupy a property when the agreed terms would actually be construed as a lease. The two terms are bandied around and often used interchangeably; knowing the difference is key to avoiding lengthy and costly proceedings which go hand in hand with any disputes. Case law has taught us that labelling a document as a licence does not mean that it isn’t a lease. If certain elements (e.g. exclusive possession) are present then the document will technically be a lease with all the considerations that go with this.

 

Read More

Read full article
ILN Today Post

Vicarious liability

When are exhibitors responsible for the unexpected actions of their employees? Mike Tremeer, Senior Associate at Fladgate LLP, sheds some light on the matter by examining a recent case.

For many years, businesses have grappled with the issue of being held responsible for their employees’ actions. Often, responsibility can be assumed – an employee placed at the box office selling tickets is accepted to be acting as ‘the face’ of the business. Accordingly, the employer is expected to be accountable for the actions of the employee – including offering refunds and other remedies should the employee make an error. However, when the employee’s actions stray outside of normal day-to-day duties, will the employer be responsible, or can they distance themselves from the consequences?

Read More

Read full article

Will we have a UK public register for offshore entities owning UK property?

The UK may become the first country to introduce a beneficial ownership register for overseas companies and other legal entities owning UK property (of any kind) or who wish to procure UK Government work.

According to the Government’s April 2017 ‘Call for Evidence’ publication, the register will be modelled on the existing UK Persons of Significant Control (PSC) register for companies, with the information publicly available at Companies House.

Read full article

The GS Media case: “He’s making it up as he goes along!”

rawpixel-com-252127The GS Media case: “He’s making it up as he goes along!”[1]

This is not a Brexit whinge, but when I reread the ECJ’s decision in the GS Media case[2], I do understand where 52% of my countrymen were coming from.  Generally, the EU has (IMHO) been a force for good in IP law, by trying to keep the law up to date in a period of insane technological development and promoting consistency across the member states to reduce the number of local wrinkles that businesses have to deal with.

Read full article
ILN Today Post

The legal challenge to the gig economy

Michael McCartney, a partner at Fladgate LLP, discusses the implications of claims brought against companies like Uber and Deliveroo

Hermes is the latest to face a legal challenge to its business model following claims that its couriers should be classed as ‘workers’ rather than ‘self-employed’ persons.

This claim (which is backed by the GMB) follows a succession of claims brought against companies like Uber, Deliveroo, DX, City Sprint and Amazon, all of whom operate in the gig economy.

The burgeoning “gig economy” refers to those who, like musicians, turn up to work at individual gigs with no future commitment beyond that.

Read More 

Read full article

Protecting personal representatives: interim estate distributions

How should a personal representative (PR) deal with a request from a beneficiary for an interim distribution before the estate is finalised?  Estates can take many months to conclude but a beneficiary may be in need of some of their inheritance sooner.  Can an executor help out without putting him or herself on the line?
Any PR (be they an executor of a Will or an administrator of an intestate estate) facing a request for an early distribution should consider their own position as well as the beneficiary’s.  A PR owns a duty to the court, both to gather in the assets of the deceased and also to ensure that sufficient estate assets are retained to meet all liabilities and pay creditors.  Not all liabilities may be evident at the time of death.  Failure to retain sufficient funds to pay these may result in creditors pursuing the PR personally, so a PR must exercise caution in the face of such requests.


Unless the PR was very familiar with the deceased’s finances, or the beneficiaries can be entirely trusted to return estate assets if necessary, a PR should consider taking advantage of the protection offered by s.27 of the Trustee Act 1925 and advertise for creditors in the London Gazette (and elsewhere if appropriate, depending upon the deceased’s circumstances).  Once the two month notice period has expired and if the PR has still received no notification of a claim prior to distribution, any creditor who appears after distribution has to pursue the recipient of the estate funds, rather than the PR.


Section 44 of the Administration of Estates Act 1925 provides that ‘a personal representative is not bound to distribute the estate of the deceased before the expiration of one year from the death’.  Accordingly PR’s cannot be forced to distribute sooner but could consider doing so if they are confident that all liabilities and creditors have been ascertained. 


For deceased UK domiciliaries, PRs should be aware that claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975 can be issued up to 6 months after the Grant of Probate is itself issued and the claimant then has a further four months in which to serve the claim.  Therefore 1975 Act claimants can appear up to ten months after the Grant has issued.


If an interim distribution is needed sooner, a PR should consider insisting on a form of indemnity from the beneficiary to confirm that, should a claim be made against the PR in connection with the estate, the beneficiary will indemnify the PR for that claim out of the funds distributed.  The PR will need to consider whether that beneficiary will be good for the money if the indemnity needs to be relied upon.  Ideally the PR will also obtain confirmation from the beneficiary that the beneficiary accepts the sums distributed at least in partial satisfaction of their interest in the estate.  It may be appropriate to provide a set of draft estate accounts at this point.


Alternatively, depending upon the assets comprising the estate and their administrative powers, the PR may be able to offer to loan a beneficiary a portion of their share of the estate, in return for a suitable indemnity.  This is likely to be more satisfactory for a PR, as the PR still retains ownership of the estate assets, albeit in the form of an IOU.  The creditworthiness of the beneficiary will need to be considered once again.
  
Lay PRs, in particular, can often feel under pressure from family member beneficiaries to make early distributions.  However, creditors need make no exceptions for lay PRs!  The law allows PRs to protect themselves and a prudent PR will do just that.

Read full article
ILN Today Post

Rights to light claim – Developer’s “un-neighbourly” conduct results in an injunction

Overview

The Court of Appeal upheld an injunction against a developer sought by a neighbour whose right to light had been infringed by an external staircase which the developer had erected in breach of an undertaking it had given to the neighbour. The Court dismissed the developer’s appeal and held that, in the circumstances, the County Court had been entitled to grant an injunction requiring the developer to remove the staircase, rather than pay compensatory damages.

Read More

Read full article

To Airbnb or not to Airbnb?

Airbnb has become known as the world’s largest accommodation provider but it owns no property. It gives property owners an opportunity to let their properties out on a short-term basis with relative ease and gives consumers an opportunity to stay in a home and ‘live like a local’ in their location of choice. As a result of this it has become well known in recent years and is used frequently by many.

For property owners it has become an easy and profitable way of generating additional income, particularly for those with residential properties in desirable city centre locations. However, if you choose to use Airbnb or any other short-term letting website for letting your property, it is important that you consider the legal consequences of doing so alongside the financial benefits.

Read More

Read full article