Issue: February 2025

Property Redress – rebrand

February 2025 | Landlord and tenant – residential

If the above changes are introduced, property practitioners may find themselves advising clients to pursue mediation for landlord and tenant disputes. Note that the Property Redress Scheme has rebranded and is now called ‘Property Redress’ and there is a new-look website. It is one of two government approved schemes covering the sales and letting sector. …

This article is only available to subscribers.

EAT – discrimination and victimisation

February 2025 | Employment

The EAT has heard a case involving a union’s employment solicitor. The case summary is as follows: ‘TRADE UNION RIGHTS & VICTIMISATION An Employment Tribunal erred in its approach to the burden of proof. The Claimant had been employed as an employment law solicitor for the RMT. He took proceedings against the RMT. He was …

This article is only available to subscribers.

Covenant – not implied

February 2025 | Landlord and tenant – residential

The UT (Lands Chamber) has heard an interesting appeal from the FTT (Property Chamber) involving breach of covenant of a lease. A property was converted into flats without planning permission – the court had to consider whether a term could be implied into the lease that a tenant would comply with its legal obligations. The …

This article is only available to subscribers.

Termination payments – status

February 2025 | Employment

The FTT (Tax Chamber) has heard a case which we could include in the commercial and tax sections in addition to employment. The case involved the familiar territory of the payment of £30,000 on termination of employment. The FTT heard the case to determine the status of these payments. The case involved joint appeals by …

This article is only available to subscribers.

Discount rate – change

February 2025 | Personal injury

The Damages (Personal Injury) (England and Wales) Order 2024 came into force on 11 January 2025 and states that the prescribed rate of return referred to in section A1(1) of the Damages Act 1996 is 0.5%. This Order prescribes 0.5% as the rate of return which, under section A1(1) of the Damages Act 1996 (c. …

This article is only available to subscribers.

Shares – oral agreement

February 2025 | Commercial

The HC has heard an interesting case regarding an oral agreement made regarding the transfer of company shares. A family building company was set up in 2003 comprising a married couple, Pamela and Alan and their son, Mark and his wife, Suzanne. The 100 shares in the company were held by the family members as …

This article is only available to subscribers.

Wages – unlawful deduction

February 2025 | Employment

The employment tribunals have recently considered a number of cases involving unlawful deduction from wages (see our Dec 2024/Jan 2025 edition, p17). The EAT has heard a case involving incorrect calculation of holiday pay over three years. The case summary is as follows: ‘SUMMARY UNLAWFUL DEDUCTION FROM WAGES The Respondent conceded that it calculated the …

This article is only available to subscribers.

Car hire cost – no MOT

February 2025 | Procedure

The CA has heard a case involving insurance claims for provision of a hire car in the event of an accident. The CA summarised the position as follows: ‘1. The Defendant’s lorry negligently drove into the Claimant’s Volvo when it was parked and unattended on 20 February 2021. The accident caused damage to the Claimant’s …

This article is only available to subscribers.

SRA – cold calls

February 2025 | Conduct, practice and risk management

The SRA has issued a warning notice to firms about prohibited marketing practices, such as cold calling, door knocking and directly targeted online messaging. The notice is relevant to all, but is aimed at those carrying out high-volume consumer claims work. The SRA’s concerns are: that law firms or those sourcing claims on their behalf …

This article is only available to subscribers.

Divorce – void or voidable?

February 2025 | Family

In an unfortunate coupling of a drafting ambiguity and a coding error, the President of the Family Court has concluded that 79 divorces were voidable rather than void. The consequences of a divorce being declared void would have been significant, eg a remarried party would have committed bigamy. In the case of a voidable divorce, …

This article is only available to subscribers.