EG 30-11-1904-12-2019, 08:59
Big part of this week’s EG on work-life balance. One in 4 property professionals have considered suicide!! Poor workplace culture, long hours, and a profit/timesheet culture? Sound familiar? If so, read this edition. Astonishingly, 70% of property professionals have experienced mental health issues…
p.71 How employers should best look after the mental wellbeing of their employees.
p.73 Mental Capacity Act 2005 - Outline of the procedures under the Act and the need to appoint a litigation friend of the protected party. Gives examples of how failure to identify the mental incapacity of a defendant tenant to forfeiture can unravel the action, or lease extensions
p.74 Equitable leases. Must read article. What to do when you have not applied for a lease of more than 7yrs to be registered within 2 months of grant - this happens a lot in residential transactions, but also happens on commercial. L may not be able to enforce covenants, easements may be void, unmortgageable security, unenforceable guarantees, etc. Its not just a tenant’s problem.
p.76 Formalities for land contracts. Quick run through of the basics of a valid contract, electronic signatures and subject to contract negotiations. Good refresher on the requirements
p.78 Lease extension - what is ‘a flat’ ? Looks at the tricky definition and the latest CA case - Aldford House Freehold v Grosvenor (Mayfair) Estate, a collective enfranchisement claim. The landlord failed in its argument that two flats, which were in the midst of construction, were ‘flats’ thereby meaning the T’s notice was defective. The court held that they had to have reached the stage of being suitable for use as a dwelling. Also raises the question of whether AirBnB style properties could be regarded as flats where they are intended to be used for short occupancy only
p.79 Regent Wealth v Wiggins 2019, an UT case, on a drafting mistake that made a £2M difference in value on a collective enfranchisement claim! It involved a complex set of leases and Iicences - the court holding that a drafting mistake can only be corrected as a matter of construction if there is a clear and obvious mistake and it is obvious what the correction must be.