Samuel Parsons considers the recent decision of ICC Judge Barber in Re London Bridge Entertainment Partners LLP (in administration) – Guildhall Chambers

Posted November 26th, 2019 in administrators, deposits, expenses, news, rent by sally

‘Insolvency and Companies Court (ICC) Judge Barber held that the Lundy Granite principle does not extend to an obligation to ‘top up’ a rent deposit fund, where sums had been withdrawn from the fund to pay rent. Re London Bridge Entertainment Partners shows how seemingly immaterial business decisions made when an entity is solvent will be thrown into relief when the same entity becomes insolvent. Here, the decision to ‘pay first, ask questions later’ from the deposit fund meant that the landlord effectively lost its priority ranking in respect of those rent payments; a priority it could otherwise have been entitled to. The case also demonstrates that the ambit of provable debts will continue to be construed broadly, while the category of administration expenses will be narrowly construed. Written by Samuel Parsons, barrister at Guildhall Chambers.’

Full Story

Guildhall Chambers, 22nd November 2019

Source: www.guildhallchambers.co.uk

Deposit penalties. How many breaches is too many?- Nearly Legal

Posted June 4th, 2019 in damages, deposits, housing, landlord & tenant, news, penalties by sally

‘A quick note, because Rea Murray has done the heavy lifting for me. We’ve seen the ‘claims for multiple deposit breaches’ issues before, although in the guise of whether a claim could be brought for a number of tenancies at once. This was a county court appeal to a circuit judge on exactly what counted as a claimable breach, and how many could be claimed per tenancy.’

Full Story

Nearly Legal, 3rd June 2019

Source: nearlylegal.co.uk

Deposits – Better to give than to receive – Nearly Legal

Posted May 7th, 2019 in appeals, deposits, housing, landlord & tenant, news, repossession by tracey

‘Sebastiampillai v Parr. Central London County Court, 11 April 2019. Does a change of landlord require provision of fresh prescribed information? How does this operate in view of section 215B Housing Act 2004 (as inserted by the Deregulation Act 2015) and the express over-riding of the requirement to re-serve prescribed information on each replacement tenancy? This was the issue in this county court appeal from a first instance possession order.’

Full Story

Nearly Legal, 6th May 2019

Source: nearlylegal.co.uk

U Can’t Do This* – Nearly Legal

Posted February 18th, 2019 in deposits, landlord & tenant, news, repossession by sally

‘This was a directions hearing in a possession claim, supposedly brought by Ojo & Opaleye. The tenant, Ms M, was defending on the basis of failure to comply with deposit protection regulations.’

Full Story

Nearly Legal, 15th February 2019

Source: nearlylegal.co.uk

Late, later, too late – Nearly Legal

Posted October 11th, 2018 in deposits, housing, landlord & tenant, news by sally

‘Ms T was Ms N’s assured shorthold tenant, with a fixed term tenancy starting on 25 July 2013. The tenancy became a statutory periodic on 25 July 2014. An initial deposit of £1300 was taken, but it was not protected until 22 January 2014. When the statutory periodic tenancy began, Ms N did not renew the deposit protection (as then required by MyDeposits) and the deposit ceased to be protected some weeks after the statutory periodic tenancy began. It was not again protected until 23 February 2017. Prescribed information was, in each case, provided to Ms T at about the time of the protection.’

Full Story

Nearly Legal, 10th October 2018

Source: nearlylegal.co.uk

Retention proposals take shape: analysing the text of the Aldous Bill – Practical Law: Construction Blog

Posted May 16th, 2018 in bills, construction industry, contracts, deposits, news by tracey

‘For many years, parts of the construction sector have pushed for improvement of the market’s treatment of retention monies. Post-Carillion and its devastating impact on suppliers, however, matters may have reached a tipping point. On 9 January 2018 – a few days before the construction giant’s collapse – the backbencher Peter Aldous introduced the Construction (Retention Deposit Schemes) Bill under Parliament’s Ten Minute Rule. Given the importance of government support in mustering a majority in the House of Commons, relatively few Private Members’ Bills (PMB) become law. To this end, proponents of the “Aldous Bill”, not least the Waveney MP himself, have been busily promoting its merits within the industry and rallying support among politicians ahead of it being debated by MPs at the second reading.’

Full Story

Practical Law: Construction Blog, 15th May 2018

Source: constructionblog.practicallaw.com

Deposits, Lies and Unlawful Evictions – Nearly Legal

Posted November 1st, 2017 in damages, deposits, landlord & tenant, news, repossession, trespass by sally

‘The Claimants were the tenants of a property owned by the Defendant by way of an Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreement dated 18th September 2012. A deposit was paid in the sum of £500 but not protected by the Defendant.’

Full Story

Nearly Legal, 31st October 2017

Source: nearlylegal.co.uk

Law firm should have warned property investor clients of “Mafia risk”, CA rules – Legal Futures

‘A law firm with offices in Italy and England has lost its appeal against a High Court ruling that it was under a duty to warn British and Irish property investors of the risks of investing in a part of Italy associated with organised crime.’

Full Story

Legal Futures, 2nd August 2017

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

When One Purchaser Signs the Contract for Sale and the Other Does Not … – Radcliffe Chambers

Posted February 21st, 2017 in appeals, contracts, deposits, news, sale of land by sally

‘And indeed never authorised the co-purchaser to enter into a contract on her behalf without her consent, did not know that he was entering into a contract, or consent to his doing so on her behalf. That was the remarkable situation in the case of Rabiu v. Marlbray Ltd [2016] 1 WLR 5147. At first blush one might have thought, in line with the decision in Suleman v. Shahsavari [1998] 1 WLR 1181, that in the absence of the signature of one of the co-purchasers, there was no binding contract and that that would be the end of the matter. So the trial judge concluded, but the Court of Appeal held that on the facts of the case the purchaser who had signed had rendered himself liable as between himself and the vendor of the property, notwithstanding the absence of the signature of his co-purchaser. In so doing it distinguished Suleman. The decision of the Court of Appeal, which runs to 111 paragraphs, considers a number of issues and repays careful study. This casenote will consider the questions of the validity of the contract between the vendor and the copurchaser and the formalities required by s.2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. A second casenote (to follow) will consider whether, on the assumption that there was no valid contract as between the vendor and the co-purchaser (either because the contract had not been signed by the other co-purchaser, or because of want of the formalities required by s.2), the vendor was required to return the co-purchaser’s deposit or could retain it.’

Part One (PDF)
Part Two (PDF)

Radcliffe Chambers, February 2017

Source: www.radcliffechambers.com

Approaching Deposit Orders After H v Ishmail – Littleton Chambers

Posted February 17th, 2017 in deposits, employment tribunals, news by sally

‘Deposit orders can be a useful tool for respondents facing unmeritorious claims. This is particularly true for discrimination or whistleblowing claims, which are notoriously difficult to get struck out. A separate deposit order can be made in respect of each allegation in a claim, not just each claim, and this can be useful where the claims make wide-ranging allegations over a long period.’

Full story

Littleton Chambers, 19th January 2017

Source: www.littletonchambers.com

The agreements that weren’t – Nearly Legal

Posted September 6th, 2016 in deposits, landlord & tenant, news, trusts by sally

‘Every now and again there is a reminder of the problems of a contractual tenancy. In this case, the difficulties involved a deposit of £52,000 and a weekly rent of £6,500.’

Full story

Nearly Legal, 5th September 2016

Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk

Buyer beware – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted July 26th, 2016 in damages, deposits, misrepresentation, news, penalties, rescission, sale of land by sally

‘William Griffiths QC is a successful silk but was the unsuccessful defendant in the widely reported case of Hardy v Griffiths [2014]. Mr and Mrs Griffiths had exchanged contracts with the claimant, Mr Hardy, to buy Laughton Manor for £3.6m and paid £150,000 on account of the 10% deposit, the contract incorporating the Standard Conditions of Sale (SCS).’

Full story

Hardwicke Chambers, 25th July 2016

Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk

Deposit Dilemmas – Tanfield Chambers

Posted July 12th, 2016 in contracts, deposits, news, repayment, rescission, sale of land by sally

‘Contracts for the sale of land can fail to complete for many reasons. The Standard Conditions and Standard Commercial Conditions require a 10% deposit to be paid on exchange of contracts. This can amount to a substantial sum of money. Purchasers will know that where they fail to complete it is commonplace for the vendor to retain that deposit. In the current market, with property prices soaring ever higher, the out-of-pocket purchaser may be justified in feeling that the vendor has obtained a windfall in keeping the deposit and selling the property on to a third party at a higher price.’

Full story

Tanfield Chambers, 6th July 2016

Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk

From the County Courts – deposits, evictions and introductory tenancies – Nearly Legal

‘Some county court cases reported in the indispensable ‘Housing: Recent Developments’ in Legal Action for May 2016. Cases involve introductory tenancies, deposits, harassment and illegal eviction.’

Full story

Nearly Legal, 12th June 2016

Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk

Deposits, leaflets and company landlords – Nearly Legal

Posted April 19th, 2016 in appeals, deposits, documents, landlord & tenant, news, repossession by sally

‘This was an appeal of a possession order made against Mr Bali at Lambeth County Court. Mr B was the assured shorthold tenant of Manaquel Company Limited. A deposit was taken and protected. Manaquel subsequently purportedly served a section 21 notice and brought possession proceedings. At first instance, the issue was whether Manaquel had complied with the requirements on serving the Prescribed Information.’

Full story

Nearly Legal, 18th April 2016

Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk

Deposits, dog hairs, doors and defamation – Nearly Legal

Posted November 23rd, 2015 in animals, appeals, defamation, deposits, housing, landlord & tenant, news, privilege by sally

‘As if tenancy deposits weren’t complicated enough, now we can add libel claims to the consequences of a heated deposit dispute. It turns out that sending potentially libellous accusations to the deposit scheme adjudication service is possibly covered by qualified privilege.’

Full story

Nearly Legal, 21st November 2015

Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk

Professional Negligence: Let the Client Decide what matters – 36 Bedford Row Property Blog

‘The High Court has given a reminder of the important qualification to the general principle that a lawyer, or licensed conveyancer, is not obliged to undertake investigations that are not expressly or impliedly requested by the client. The principle is subject to the qualification that: if in fact a solicitor acquires information that may be of importance to a client; then it is the duty of the solicitor to bring that information to the attention of the client. It is the client who decides whether the information is important; the lawyer should not presume to make that decision. Failing to consider information, to advise the client or even pass on such information to the client can be costly. It is safer to communicate too much rather than too little.’

Full story

36 Bedford Row Property Blog, 27th October 2015

Source: www.36property.co.uk

Making sense of deposits. Nearly. – Nearly Legal

Posted August 25th, 2015 in deposits, housing, landlord & tenant, news, penalties by sally

‘It started as such a simple idea, the tenancy deposit regulations. But bad drafting and some ‘interesting’ interpretations by the Courts put paid to that. We now have a confusing mess, for both landlords and tenants.’
Full story

Nearly Legal, 24th August 2015

Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk

How late it was, how late – Nearly Legal

Posted June 30th, 2015 in deposits, housing, landlord & tenant, news, time limits by sally

‘A County Court deposit protection case, and an illustration of some of the ways in which landlords still haven’t figured out how the deposit rules work.’

Full story

Nearly Legal, 29th June 2015

Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk

Ng and another v Charalambous and another – WLR Daily

Posted December 19th, 2014 in deposits, housing, landlord & tenant, law reports, repossession by sally

Ng and another v Charalambous and another [2014] EWCA Civ 1604; [2014] WLR (D) 540

‘Section 213 of the Housing Act 2004, as amended, which provided that any tenancy deposit paid to a person in connection with a shorthold tenancy in existence on 6 April 2012 had to be dealt with in accordance with an authorised scheme, was concerned not with the date at which the deposit was received but with the date on which the tenancy was in effect. Where such a deposit was not held in an authorised scheme, having been received before the relevant date, the sanctions for non-compliance in section 215(1) nevertheless applied so as to preclude the landlord from serving on the tenant a valid notice stating that possession was required under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988.’

WLR Daily, 16th December 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk