Search results

In the first part of this article (Facilities Vol 7/No 3/March 1989) we saw that, where a lease prohibits a tenant from carrying out a particular act without the consent (or approval or some other similar word) of the landlord, the general rule is that the words ‘such consent (etc) not to be unreasonably withheld’ will not be implied into the lease if they are not expressly included.

This article aims to provide both a broad introduction to the law regarding ‘limitation’ and in particular to assess the impact of The Latent Damage Act 1986. Limitation is, broadly speaking, the area of law concerned with the time limits imposed upon those wishing to bring a legal action. The Act was passed to remedy certain injustices that occurred in situations where damage suffered was not immediately apparent or identifiable: in other words, where the damage that occurred was ‘latent’ and not ‘patent’. Before the Act came into force a plaintiff could have rights of action against a negligent builder, contractor or adviser, before he even knew of these rights. Equally, there was uncertainty as to the period for which a defendant could be held liable for negligence.

Occupiers of buildings must now beware. In the House of Lords decision D & F Estates Ltd and Others v Church Commissioners for England and Others (see Facilities Vol 6/No 9 /September 1988) given on 14 July 1988, the House of Lords considered the extent to which the cost of repairing a defect in a building which was discovered before the causing of any injury or personal damage to other property, was recoverable by a negligence claim by the occupier against the builder. The case concerned the scope of the duty of care which a builder owes to a party such as an occupier in the absence of a contractual link or a uniquely proximate relationship (that is, a relationship so close that it is akin to contract). This article explains the facts of D & F Estates and its implications for the occupiers of buildings.

New legislation has recently come into force which should make it easier and quicker to get consent to transfer a lease or to underlet leasehold property. This month we will review the existing law about obtaining the landlord's consent not only to transfers but also to such things as making alterations and the delays and problems which may be met. We shall look at how the Law Commission proposed to ease those difficulties, note that, unfortunately but nevertheless usefully, reform has been restricted to improvements aimed at speeding up consent to transfers of leases and, finally, set out some practical advice to follow.

The Construction Products Directive of 21 December 1988 — on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the member states relating to construction products — provides for free trade in construction products throughout the European Economic Community. Implementation must be achieved by 27 June 1991. The directive has been made under a 1985 resolution of the Council of Ministers on the New Approach to Technical Harmonisation and Standards (‘the new approach’) which allows directives concerning harmonisation of product standards to be issued on a majority vote.

Before 1948, a landowner could, in broad terms, do as he pleased with his land and buildings. Obviously where land was leased, the lessee could only act within the covenants contained in his lease or, where there were no covenants, within the bounds of the law of waste. Admittedly, even before 1948 there were such matters as building control and building regulations, but compared to the town and country planning regime, the limitations imposed by these were comparatively minor.

Taking a lease of commercial premises is a commitment not to be underestimated. Its terms can hinder the full and proper use and enjoyment and, indeed, disposal of the premises by a tenant who is unaware of potential pitfalls at the negotiating stage. It is unwise for a tenant to commit itself to entering into a lease without first seeking legal advice.

Despite the increasingly sophisticated fire precautions required by legislation, and a heightened public awareness of its dangers, fire remains one of the main causes of death and serious injury in the community. Since the majority of these accidents occur in the home, fire service information concentrates very much on the domestic aspect of fire.

Examines the question of liability for rates on empty premises in the light of an increasing number of property vacancies in the United Kingdom. Discusses the general principle of rate liability, classes of property liable to empty rates, ownership, mortgagee′s right to possession, avoiding liability, liquidation, and minimizing the empty rate. Concludes that the potentially onerous liability of empty rate has to be weighed against the loss of control by the mortgagee, for example, through a receiver.

The recent Blue Arrow and Maxwell cases have highlighted the extremely wide‐ranging powers of investigation and inquiry vested in regulatory authorities such as the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and in company liquidators by recent legislation (Companies Act 1985, Insolvency Act 1986, Criminal Justice Act 1987). In this paper, the author reviews the current state of the law on the availability of the privilege against self‐incrimination and of legal professional privilege as protection for senior company officials who face such investigations or inquiries. Through the consideration of a hypothetical scenario, the paper provides some general suggestions with a view to minimising, insofar as possible, the problems, criticisms and adverse publicity for the company which may result from these investigations and inquiries