BUSINESS TENANTS: WATCH OUT FOR THE TAX MAN!

If you are a business tenant, and you hold over after expiry of the Lease, then you may face an unexpected SDLT liability for the holding over period. This rule applies to Leases granted on or after 1st December 2003, where the Tenant is holding over. There is an implied one-year extension to the expired Lease, which attracts new SDLT liability.

In due course, if and when a renewal Lease is granted, any SDLT already paid can be offset against the SDLT payable on the renewal Lease.Therefore, whilst this rule may not affect the overall amount of your liability, it will accelerate the liability or part of it. A Tenant in this situation is required to file an SDLT return within 30 days of the end of the expired Lease.

For further information please email us at andrew@salehs.co.uk (Andrew Koffman) or david@salehs.co.uk (David Walton).

EMPLOYMENT LAW - GOOD NEWS?

Mandatory procedures, for employers taking disciplinary action against employees, have been in force since 2004. Similar, reciprocal grievance procedures for employees were introduced at the same time.These procedures have probably resulted in more, rather than less, Litigation.It is hard to find anyone who thinks that the measures have been a success. So much so, in fact, that the measures are now set to be abolished next year. Instead there is likely to be a slimmed down version of the ACAS Code of Practice, which will be recommended rather than mandatory.

We will provide further news about the new Code of Practice nearer the time.

Click here to read full article

PARTY PARENTS DEFLATED BY BOUNCY CASTLE ACCIDENT

An interesting case for parents organising a child’s party… with wider implications. The case of Harris v. Perry, Perry and Harris was heard in April and Judgment was given in May.

The facts: 11 year old Samuel Harris had been football training on a public field on which the Defendant parents (Perry) had hired a bouncy castle for a child’s birthday party. Harris alleged that he asked the Perrys’ permission to go on the castle and the Perrys agreed. The Judge accepted Harris’s allegation and rejected the Perrys’ denial of this fact. Harris sustained a serious head injury when a larger boy(s) somersaulted and accidentally kicked him. He sued the Perrys.

The Judgment: The Court held:-

1. The level of supervision was inadequate as there were intervals when the bouncy castle was left unattended.

2. No instruction had been issued to the children using the bouncy castle and in particular as to the dangers of somersaulting.

3. The risks of a damaging collision were greatly enhanced by permitting children of different sizes on a bouncy castle at the same time.

Accordingly the Perrys were liable to Harris.

Comment: This accident occurred during a children’s party, a freak accident at a one-off event. However, the key factors comprising continuous uninterrupted supervision, the proper use and issue of warnings could be more widely applied so… beware you trampoline owners!

If you don’t want HASSLE
you need SALEHS!

If you would like to discuss any matter arising from this Newsletter with a member of our litigation team, please do not hesitate to contact our Head of Litigation, Andrew Koffman, or one of the other Solicitors in the Department, Mark Hilton and Nicola Stratton, on 0161-434-9991 or at the following email addresses:- andrew@salehs.co.uk; mark@salehs.co.uk; nicola@salehs.co.uk

Note: The contents of Litigation News are for information purposes only and are not intended in any way to amount to legal advice on any specific set of facts. Whilst the contents of this newsletter are correct at the date of publication to the best of our knowledge and belief, neither Salehs LLP, nor its Partners or Employees, make any representation regarding the completeness or accuracy of the contents or any action taken in reliance thereon.