The expression “dilapidations” refers to any breach of lease covenants which relate to the condition of a leased property. This can apply to, among other things, a tenant’s covenants to repair the premises, to decorate or to remove alterations.

The process for ensuring that dilapidations are remedied usually takes place at the end of a lease, and any such dilapidations are commonly labelled “terminal” or “lease end” dilapidations. The procedure for determining liability can be complex and can potentially end up in Court.

As the nights drew in, the end of 2017 saw a flurry of case law on security for costs, and particularly its interaction with after the event (ATE) insurance and litigation funding. This article considers what insights can be gleaned for litigants who do not want to be left out in the cold.

Premier Motorauctions: security for costs and ATE

 Background

Much has already been said about the demise of Carillion and the impact of its liquidation on the various parties with whom it contracted. In this article, I would like to examine what light the demise of Carillion throws on themes commonly encountered within insolvency and whether there are lessons to be learned for everyone.

Having read the various reports in the press, it is clear that whilst Carillion entered into multi-billion pound government contracts, the contracts had extremely small profit margins, ultimately rendering the business unsustainable.

Main contractor Carillion’s entry into liquidation has resulted in many employers seeking to establish relationships with subcontractors, under which they will be paid directly in order to stay on site and finish the relevant project. On the face of it, this seems like an attractive solution, and may leave some employers wondering why they didn’t procure their projects by construction management in the first place. However, establishing direct relations is not without risks, and requires safeguards for employers and subcontractors alike.

The Pension Protection Fund (PPF) published new forms of contingent asset agreements in January along with new contingent asset guidance. It follows its publication of a final determination and levy policy statement in December for the levy year 2018/29.

Background

The rules on contingent assets are broadly as for last year but there are developments to note. Recertification can take longer than expected if there have been changes in relation to an asset.

Trustees and sponsors should be preparing for the recertification of contingent assets that are to remain in place with a view to levy advantage for the 2018/19 year. If there have been changes in relation to a contingent asset, recertification may take materially longer than otherwise.

With residential leasehold law in the spotlight, landlords should be aware of a recent court case which focused upon the method of calculating the premium payable for a residential lease extension.

There are many issues that can hinder the collection of book debts and insolvency (of either the creditor or the debtor) is usually the catalyst for most them. Following an insolvency, those attempting to collect book debts are often faced with a number of reasons as to why a debtor can’t or won’t pay, including the set-off / contra arrangements, product warranty concerns, defective or non-delivery of goods or services and last, but not least, retention of title (“RoT”) clauses.

Back in October 2017, the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (“PAP”) was launched to very little fanfare. PAP is part of the Civil Procedure Rules which govern how parties deal with litigation claims through the County Court and is the first time that strict rules have been put in place for pre-action conduct on a debt matter. I wrote an article about PAP at the time to explain the ins and outs of it.