The Practical Lawyer

Home
About
CPD
Subscribe
Contact
Conveyancing

SDLT 3% – annexes

Self-contained annexes included in the purchase of a house have now been removed from the additional 3% surcharge.
Subscribers only...
 

SDLT 3% – trust

Whether or not a trust will pay the higher rates depends on whether the trust is a life interest or discretionary trust.
Subscribers only...
 

SDLT 3% – companies

Modified rules apply when residential property is bought through a company. The starting point is that the company will pay the additional 3% if it buys a residential property (even if does not own another residential property). But, the additional 3% will not apply to a purchase by a company of a ‘higher threshold interest’ which is subject to the 15% flat rate charge (in other words, the SDLT rate remains at 15% – not 18%).
 

SDLT 3% – investment property

   If H and W both individually own a residential property, but live together in one of them, there is a potential SDLT 3% trap. In that situation, it is easy to envisage the couple deciding to buy a new main residence but selling the one property they are not living in (eg to finance the purchase), and then retaining the other current home as an investment property.

Subscribers only...
 

SDLT 3% – joint names

The additional 3% can apply if H and W decide to put their main residence – currently owned by one of them – into joint names, if one or other of them already owns another dwelling.
Subscribers only...
 

Replies to enquiries – accuracy

An inaccurate reply to pre-contract enquiries will amount to a misrepresentation. In the right circumstances that could entitle the buyer to terminate the contract, and also recover damages for deceit.
Subscribers only...
 

Bankruptcy search – pre-completion?

An article from Hardwicke Chambers argues that ‘a reasonably competent conveyancing solicitor’ should be doing a bankruptcy search against the seller prior to              completion.
Subscribers only...
 

H and W – one authorised to sign?

Suppose H signs a purchase contract on behalf of himself and W, but does not have W’s authority to do so. Is there a binding contract?

The starting point is Suleman [1988] which involved a sale by joint owners H and W. W had given the solicitor authority to both sign and exchange on behalf of herself and H. However, W did not have H’s authority to exchange. The court decided that authority from both sellers was needed to validly exchange, and accordingly there was no binding contract (and the buyer’s claim for specific performance failed).

Subscribers only...
 

Boundaries – FTT powers

Does the First-Tier Tribunal have jurisdiction to resolve boundary disputes? There have recently been two conflicting Upper Tribunal decisions on this point:

Subscribers only...
 

Law firm ID – online checks

Many firms use the online Law Society database to check on the ID of the other side. But, what happens if the Law Society database is inaccurate?
Subscribers only...
 


Page 10 of 48

Most-read articles

Disputed will – guidance; procedure
Wednesday, 13 February 2019
What should you do if asked for correspondence and other documents in relation to a will you prepared for a client who has since died?  Read more...
MoJ – IT meltdown
Wednesday, 13 February 2019
Many litigators are no doubt all too aware of the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) January 2019 IT failures that hit the delivery of frontline legal services in some courts.  Read more...
Statutory notices – service
Wednesday, 13 February 2019
The SC has widened the scope of the service of statutory notices. Read more...
Part 36 offers – appropriate
Wednesday, 13 February 2019
Part 36 of the CPR allows a claimant or defendant to make an offer of settlement before trial. If the offer is not accepted and the opposing party does not meet the offer at trial, the court may... Read more...
Noise nuisance – liability?
Wednesday, 13 February 2019
A recent High Court decision has confirmed that L is not liable for nuisance caused by its T merely because L does not take steps available to prevent the cause of the nuisance, even when L knows... Read more...
RICS – service charges
Wednesday, 13 February 2019
We noted the RICS Code of Practice on service charges in our October 2018 issue, p19; the ‘Service Charges in Commercial Property (1st edition)’ comes into force on 1 April 2019. Read more...
Notice of severance – rectification?
Wednesday, 13 February 2019
A recent case reminds practitioners of the importance of ensuring that a notice of severance accurately records all of the titles intended to be severed. Read more...
Children – parental responsibility; removal of
Wednesday, 13 February 2019
In what circumstances might the court order the removal of PR from the father? The author comments on a recent case which involved a unique set of circumstances justifying the removal of PR.  Read more...
Incompetence – not discrimination
Wednesday, 13 February 2019
The CA has held that an incompetent process does not amount to discrimination. Read more...
Sentencing – contempt of court
Wednesday, 13 February 2019
The Court of Appeal has ordered a new trial in relation to a claimant remanded to prison overnight for discussing evidence in a civil case.  Read more...

Resources

IAG International
In House Lawyer
Join the IBA now!
MSI Global Alliance
www.totallylegal.com