About Us

Ordinarily, a construction contract will specify a completion date by which completion of the works must be achieved. However, it is common for events to occur which delay the progress of the works and affect the critical path.  Examples of such delay events include exceptionally adverse weather, delay caused by statutory undertakers, delay caused by a Local Authority, any act of prevention or interference by the employer or force majeure. If delays mean that the works are not completed by the completion date and the contractor is not entitled to an extension of time, the contractor will ordinarily be liable to pay liquated damages to the employer for the period from the agreed completion date until the works are completed. It is important to note that a contractor has no statutory or common law entitlement to an extension of time.  Any entitlement is dependent on the specific relevant contractual provisions. All of the standard forms of construction contract include provisions for an extension of time, on specified grounds.  A contractor will seek an extension of time under the construction contract to allow the contractor to complete the works within a set period after the original contractual completion date, avoiding liability to pay the employer liquidated damages (or general damages for delay). Depending on the wording of the contract the extension of time will normally start from the completion date, rather than from when the delay event occurred. Should an extension of time be granted, common practice is to push back the completion date to a later date. As a result, the contractor will only be liable for liquidated damages if the works are not completed by the amended completion date. If the contract provides for sectional completion an extension of time might also be granted for the date for completion of a section of the works.  Contractors need to be aware what notice provisions need to be complied with under the contract is order to request and be granted an extension of time. This can include an obligation to notify the employer within a certain period of time from the occurrence of the event in question.  In addition, the employer may need to issue certain notices in order to be able to recover liquidated damages for late completion.  If the delay to completion of the works is caused by an act or omission by or on behalf of the employer, the “prevention principle” can mean that the employer will not benefit (for example receive liquidated damages) as a result.  In these circumstances, if the contract does not allow for an extension of time for the contractor, then time can be said to be “at large” and the contractor will have an obligation to complete the works within a ‘reasonable time’ rather than by any set completion date and any liquated damages provisions may fall away. It can therefore be for the benefit of the employer, as well as the contractor, to include provisions that deal with the extension of time when the contractor is delayed due to the employer’s default.

Court proceedings can be expensive, time-consuming and stressful. It is entirely possible to resolve a commercial dispute without seeking recourse from the Court. In fact, the majority of cases are settled either before Court proceedings are issued, or out of Court once proceedings have already been issued. Negotiation Most cases are resolved by negotiation and agreement, in which case they do not run their full course. This will take the form of correspondence between the parties, often referred to as ‘pre-action correspondence’ where each party sets out the full particulars of their case. Following this exchange, it may be appropriate to make a formal offer for settlement or arrange a meeting on a without prejudice basis. If a conversation or correspondence is ‘without prejudice’, the statements made cannot be put before the Court if proceeding are issued, provided that the statements are made in a genuine attempt to settle the dispute. Part 36 Offer Throughout every matter, consideration should be given as to whether a ‘Part 36 offer’ should be made. A Part 36 Offer can be a very important tactical step as it can protect your position on costs. This is because if a reasonable Part 36 offer is not accepted, and the matter proceeds to Court, there are potential cost consequences for the party who fails to accept. In summary, if an offer is made by the Claimant and a judgment is obtained that is equal to or more advantageous than the offer, the Defendant will be ordered to pay the Claimant’s costs, together with interest on the sum awarded. Likewise, if an offer is made by the Defendant, and they obtain a judgment that is less than or equal to the offer, the Claimant will be ordered to pay the Defendant’s costs, together with interest on those costs. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) There are other more cost-effective alternatives to Court proceedings such as mediation, early neutral evaluation, adjudication and arbitration (collectively referred to as “ADR”). In any contractual dispute, you would be well advised to check whether the contract specifies a certain method of ADR that must be followed prior to the issue of Court proceedings. For example, in the case of construction contracts, you will likely find a clause specifying that any dispute must be referred to arbitration or adjudication. The most common method of ADR is mediation. Mediation is a process whereby the parties meet with an independent and impartial mediator, who will assist them in the negotiation of their differences. This process is entirely confidential and will not be binding unless both parties agree. Often mediation will result in a settlement, which will be drawn up into a settlement agreement and will be legally binding once signed by the relevant parties.

This question can really be broken down into three parts. Firstly, can you transfer your house or assets – yes you probably can. Secondly, will the transfer likely avoid creditors or bankruptcy – the answer is, it depends but there are mechanisms in place which can ultimately mean the transactions could be challenged. Then finally, should you do it – with it being inherently risky the answer is more than likely no. If you decide to transfer assets or your home and are ultimately made bankrupt, on the making of a bankruptcy order the trustee in bankruptcy has the power to review transactions made by you before the making of the order (‘antecedent transactions’) and these can be challenged in court by the trustee in bankruptcy or official receiver. This is covered by sections 339-343 of the Insolvency Act 1986. These antecedent transactions can be challenged as it ensures the best recovery for creditors and offers protection of the pari passu principal (or "equal in right of payment") that your assets must be shared equally among the unsecured creditors. The Insolvency Act 1986 outlines the various types of transactions that can be challenged. They include:

• Transactions at an undervalue (for example, a transfer of property for no consideration or a gift of property). These are covered by section 339.
• Preferences (for example, paying unsecured creditors in priority to other creditors) These are covered by section 340.
• Excessive pension contributions, covered by section 342A.
• Extortionate credit transactions, covered by section 343.
• Transactions defrauding creditors (i.e., the purpose of the transaction was to put assets beyond the reach of a creditor), covered by section 423.

The trustee in bankruptcy usually challenges an antecedent transaction by applying to court. There is wide discretion on behalf of the court to undo the effect of the transaction and this can often mean ordering the return of assets or an equivalent value payment to the bankrupt’s estate. The crux of the current question is, if transfers can be made in order to avoid creditors. In this instance, there is unlikely to be any protection of assets and the court will look at all the evidence to determine this. Transactions made within the 2 years before the date of the bankruptcy application are likely to be called into question but generally speaking, transfers made more than 5 years before the presentation of the bankruptcy petition may be harder to challenge by the official receiver or trustee in bankruptcy. However, this may depend on the purpose of the transfer itself because there is no time limit if the intention was to defraud creditors. In terms of transferring your house, in many cases it will be the most valuable asset in your estate. If you divested any interest you had in the house, (which is often done by transferring the interest to a partner) prior to being declared bankrupt, then this transaction may be set aside as a transaction at an undervalue in circumstances where no consideration was received, or it was less than the market value. It is important also to flag if you are found to have committed a Bankruptcy Offence under Section 350(6) you may be liable to imprisonment or a fine, or both.

A contract (sometimes referred to as a contract underhand) and a deed are the two ways in which a binding legal agreement can be documented. In the majority of commercial transactions, a contract will be used to document the relationship between the parties (such as that of a manufacturer and a retailer). Whilst a contract does not need to be in writing, it is advised for record keeping purposes that it is. For a contract to be binding, there needs to be a clear offer, acceptance, consideration (i.e. cash changing hands) and the mutual intention of the parties to be bound legally. The contract is typically executed by both parties (or authorised representatives thereof) and will be binding and in effect from the date of the document. Deeds on the other hand do not need consideration to have changed hands between the parties for the agreement to be legally binding and enforceable. A deed must be 'prima facie' a deed, must be in written form, validly executed and delivered (this does not mean physically delivered, rather when the parties intend to be bound - deeds are commonly stated as being delivered upon execution). There are certain documents which have to be executed as a deed, such as powers of attorney and a handful or real estate related documents. Deeds may also benefit from an extended limitation period, that being the amount of time after a contractual breach a claim can be brought. For contracts this is 6 years following the breach giving way to the claim, however for deeds this is typically 12 years. Overall, in a typical commercial transaction where money is changing hands, a contract tends to be the preferable form of agreement. However, where money is not being exchanged or the parties wish to rely on an extended limitation period, then a deed may be more appropriate.

The short answer is, it depends. It depends on:

1.  the provisions in the lease; and/or
2.  the negotiating strength and bargaining power of the parties to the lease.

Please see below the possible scenarios that give rise to either the landlord or the tenant (or both) having rights to terminate the lease:

• Break clause: A break clause is a provision in a lease giving an option to a landlord, a tenant or both, to terminate the lease on a certain date (known as the break date). If the lease does contain a break clause, then the relevant party (normally the tenant) can exercise the break option provided it observes and complies with the break conditions (which will be set out in the lease). Failure to exercise the break clause conditions correctly will render the break option invalid and the right to terminate will be lost.
• Surrender: The landlord and/or tenant may wish to negotiate an early termination by way of a surrender. A surrender will often only be desirable if reasonable consideration is being offered to the other party as a sweetener to terminate the lease. A surrender premium is a payment payable by the tenant to the landlord to terminate the lease and a reverse premium is a payment payable by the landlord to the tenant to terminate the lease. Of course, this is a matter of negotiation and will largely depend on the bargaining strength of each party and the consideration being offered to the other party to bring the lease to an end. The party wishing to terminate the lease will, as part of its negotiation, undoubtedly offer to settle the other side’s professional costs and indeed any other reasonable costs in connection with the surrender.
• Assignment: The tenant may wish assign (i.e., transfer) the lease to someone else if the lease so permits. Most leases will not permit an assignment without the landlord’s prior consent. Most commercial leases require the tenant to obtain a ‘licence to assign’ from the landlord prior to parting with the lease. In most modern leases, an outgoing tenant will be required to enter into an authorised guarantee agreement with the landlord (the purpose of which is to guarantee the performance of the incoming tenant) as a condition of an assignment. Depending on the terms of the lease, the landlord may also impose further conditions before they will consent to such an assignment. The assignment provisions in the lease needs to be carefully scrutinised and understood before an application to the landlord for consent to an assignment can be made.
• 1954 Act Notices: For leases protected by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (1954 Act), a Section 25 Notice can be issued by the landlord to bring the lease to an end at or after the contractual end date of the lease, provided that certain criteria are met. Conversely, a tenant can serve its landlord with a Section 27 Notice to bring the lease to an end at or after the contractual end date. If the tenant wishes to renew its lease and serves a Section 26 Notice, a landlord may wish to object to the Section 26 Notice by serving a Counter Notice within a specified period, citing the ground that the landlord is wishing to rely upon in terminating that lease.

A data controller will determine the personal data which is to be collected from data subjects (those natural persons who the data belongs to) and why such personal data is to be collected. The data controller will therefore have overall control and responsibility over the data in question. The data controller will also be responsible for determining the lawful basis on which data is collected, who data can be disclosed to, responses to requests by data subjects and the length of time data is to be retained/when the data is to be destroyed. A data processor will need to ensure that data is processed (which includes data storage, forming databases using client personal data (such as email addresses, telephone numbers, physical addresses as so forth) in accordance with the data controller instructions. The data processor will be responsible for the security measures in place to protect personal data, how data will be stored (and the IT systems used), transfers of personal data from one entity to another and the practicalities of the deletion or disposal of data. Whilst typically an entity will be either a controller or a processor, there may be times when they act as both. For example if an entity is a processor which provides services to data controllers, the entity will likely be a controller os some personal data and a processor of other data. In some circumstanes, an entity may be a controller and processor of the same data set, where the entity is processing such data for different purposes. However, where an entity is acting as both a processor and controller, it will need to be able to distinguish between the personal data it is processing as a controller and that which it is processing as a processor.