EU Law: Free movement of workers

Directive 2004/38 and Article 39 EC (now Article 45 TFEU)

No definition of a worker; allows the court to give it a broad meaning and means that member states can’t interpret it restrictively. The courts have said that, with regards workers, any definitions should be given their ordinary meanings and that individuals should be doing ‘genuine’ and ‘effective’ work.

Common law definitions of a worker have been set out in Lawrie-Blum, which said that a worker is someone who provides services for another, for a set length of time, in exchange for money; and Levin which said that part time workers may still be regarded as workers as long as the work isn’t minimal or nominal.

Moving in search of work is an issue not covered by Article 39 (now Article 45) but has been dealt with by the common law. The authority of Royer established that there is a right to reside in search of work, presumably drawing upon general citizenship principles of the EU, drawing on Articles 20 and 21 TFEU. Levin was slightly harsher in ruling that citizens should only be granted a maximum period of 3 months in which to work, on the condition that they can provide for themselves, without being reliant on the host member state’s finances. Finally Antonissen was much more generous in ruling that individuals should be granted the right to reside for a sufficiently long length of time, such that they have a good chance at creating a link with the employment market. The current law in this area is that member states must allow a minimum for 3 months residence for EU citizens to look for work, however the UK is more generous and allows 6 months residence.

Public service jobs are not included under Article 45(4) TFEU as MS maintain the right to reserve certain jobs for their own nationals. But Sotgiu said only the court could determine which jobs are ‘public service’ jobs.

Right of residence will be granted where the individual successfully secures employment. A residency permit lasts for 5 years and is renewable. However, failure to find work or a voluntary unemployment will result in a loss or lack of permit, as demonstrated in Williams where the UK national was denied residency in the Netherlands for unemployment.

Right to reside after employment – concerns the retired and incapacitated workers. Those who have retired from work are allowed the right to continue residing in the host member state on two conditions. Namely, that the individual has reached the retirement/national pension age of that member state, and that the individual has resided in the host member state for the last 3 years, the final year of which he was in employment. Incapacitated workers are subcategorised into those who are incapacitated as a result of work undertaken in the host member state, and those who are incapacitated due to a reason unrelated to the member state. If the condition is the result of work in the member state then the individual is automatically entitled to residency for life and a state pension; whereas if the condition is from some other means, the individual must prove that he has resided in the host member state for the last 2 years.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Dependants of workers have been given rights as an extension of the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality. They are defined in Article 2 Directive 2004/38 to include the following family members: spouses, partners in a registered partnership, direct descendants (children) who are under 21 or who are dependant, and direct relatives in the ascending line including those of the spouse or partner.

Family members does not include co-habitee although in Netherlands v Reed the court made an exception as the national law of the Netherlands did not distinguish between spouses and co-habitees, and therefore they could not deny the right to a non-national where it would have been afforded to a national.

Non-EU national dependants - The case of Metock gave more rights to workers and their families by providing that ANYONE who fell within the scope of Article 2 of the Directive was entitled to reside with the worker, whether they were an EU or NON-EU NATIONAL. Furthermore, it changed the law which had previously required dependants to have prior residence in another member state, and said that the host member state could NOT LOOK AT PREVIOUS RESIDENCE.

The journal by C Costello on Metock said that “...the ECJ’s rights-based approach supports a vision of residence rights in which origins and belonging in the EU are decoupled.”

The journal by S Currie on Metock said that “...the ruling enshrines a more equitable approach to third-country national family members...”

Rights of dependants include the right to EDUCATION, HOUSING, WELFARE and TRAINING. These are particularly advanced by Regulation 1612/68.

Loss of rights will occur either when the worker loses his rights, the dependant is separated from the worker by divorce, or for example the child marrying off.

Death of the worker won’t always result in the dependant losing his rights. He will retain the right of residence if: 1) He had been residing with the worker in the host member state for the past 2 years; 2) The worker was killed by an occupational disease or industrial accident; or 3) He had previously had the nationality of that member state but lost it on becoming a dependant of the worker.

NB: the rights earned in one member state won’t necessarily transfer over if the dependant moves country. For example, pension schemes may be lost on movement abroad.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Limitations on workers and dependants are on grounds of public security, public health and public policy. They are listed in Article 27 of Directive 2004/38. This means that a citizen may be expelled from the host member state if he threatens any of the above. The authority of Rutili has established that a member state will only be able to export a citizen where “his conduct or presence constitutes a sufficiently serious threat to public policy”. This now codified in Article 27.

Van Duyn demonstrated that a country may only deport or refuse entry to individuals, not groups of people. In this case a member of the Church of Scientology was refused entry based on their beliefs and intention to join other members in the host member state.

Finally, criminal convictions won’t always lead to deportation. In Bonsignore the defendant had accidentally shot and killed his brother with an illegally possessed gun. The courts said his presence did not amount to a threat - unlikely to reoffend. However, in Bouchereau the court said it was legitimate to deport the defendant as he had a long history of drug convictions and had demonstrated a willingness to reoffend.

Article 28 of the Directive provides citizens with additional protection by setting out criteria that a member state must consider before authorising deportation.

The Legal Services Act

Check out this article on the effect of The Legal Services Act...

http://www.lawyer-monthly.com/media/Huthwaite.pdf

10 ways to boost a 'Law CV'

1) Join clubs and societies at university or college. They do not have to be related to practices in the legal profession, although your university's Law Society might be a good place to start. Showing an interest in sport or debating will also be useful at showing a potential employer your character outside of the working environment.

2) Visit your local Magistrates' Court (or, of course, any of the larger courts). This might sound tedious as many of the trials that occur in the lower courts concern petty theft, assaults and breach of a restraining order. However, as well as boosting your understanding of how the law works in practice, it should also give you a chance to show employers that you have an enthusiasm for developing your knowledge of the law outside of your studies.

3) Learn an instrument. Showing dedication to a particular interest will tell employers that you're a focused and well-rounded individual. Whether you teach yourself or decide to pay for professional music lessons, your new skill may make you stand out from other candidates - which can be particularly useful where the competition is fierce! Remember, you don't have to write your level musical ability on your CV, although many employers may ask in interview so you cannot lie!

4) Do some volunteer work. There will always be a huge range of opportunities in every town or city, you just need to know where to look. Working in a charity shop is an obvious way to get volunteering onto your CV, however you may wish to choose a project which best uses your skills, for example, artistic students may wish to help run an arts and crafts afternoon for the disabled. Volunteer work, as well as being a fantastic addition to your CV, is extremely rewarding and helps to build personal character. For those students who feel particularly passionate about volunteering, there are many -albeit more expensive- opportunities to help abroad in third-world countries.

5) Join your university's mooting or debating team. Mooting is the practice of 'playing barrister' in a mock trial. The activity is great for enhancing team work and public speaking skills, both of which are highly sought after by employers! For those students hoping to become barristers, mooting is a must. Most universities will offer both internal and external competitions, if not friendly moots. Alternatively, debating also looks great on CVs!

6) Get some legal work experience. Applying for placements with solicitors or mini-pupillages with barristers can be extremely tedious and disappointing. However, this reflects the state of the legal industry and unfortunately the process will be equally as difficult when you are applying for real jobs after graduation - making it even more essential that you secure your work experience placement! Applying to a range of firms is a great idea because although many of the larger firms will offer paid work, it's often easier to get some 'shadowing' work with smaller firms to start off with. For best chance at success, apply to firms throughout the year. Securing that placement will show employers that you have taken the initiative to learn more about the profession and also that you're sure about your career choice; it may also come in handy as a reference so be sure to make the most of each placement by being helpful and asking insightful questions.

7) Get some paid employment! It's always helpful to show an employer that you have a good understanding of general working life - from things as simple as being able to work with other employees, turn up for work on time and dress appropriately. Having a good reference from a former employer will impress any potential employers.

8) Go and see your university's careers and employability adviser who can help you make the most of your CV. A good CV should be clear, concise and should stand out from the crowd (see my earlier post on CV advice for help with what to include); it can often be hard to achieve this on your own so use the resources that are provided for you! Most employers will also want to see a covering letter - you should be able to get help with writing this too! A good covering letter should explain why you are applying, why you think you'd be suitable for the job or work experience, and finally why you chose to apply to that particular firm - this means tailoring each letter to specific firms which sounds tedious but is definitely worth it (employers can tell a unique letter from a blanket letter!)

9) Choose a lay out which best shows off your skills! For example, if you achieved a high over-all year mark by doing very well in some subjects but badly in others, you should not list what grade was achieved in each module, but simply state the over-all mark. If an employer wants to know specific grades then he/she will ask! If you have done lots of volunteering as well as paid employment and legal work experience, then put them all under separate headings rather than one broad category - you don't want an employer to miss something vital! You must state your A-levels but may choose to omit your GCSEs if they don't enhance your CV, although again, you may be asked in interview and cannot lie.

10) Double check everything before sending to a law firm! Your CV should be grammatically correct and should not exceed 2 sides of A4. It's a good idea to include an explanation of brief duties from each role, as well as any skills learnt, but do not waffle!

Good luck!

Police Powers: The right to peaceful protest

The right to peaceful protest is protected under the Human Rights Act 1988. Britain has a long and distinguished history of using peaceful protests to gain rights and change laws. In recent years the police have been granted additional powers regarding public protests. Protesters should be aware of the rights, restrictions and legal consequences of protesting.

Peaceful Protests

Peaceful protests are used around the world to take a stand on issues that the public find important. These protests range from civil rights marches against discrimination to protests supporting nuclear disarmament. Protests and campaigns can make a very real difference in changing policies and laws. Peaceful protests allow people to come together to stand up against oppression from governments and can prove to be a very effective way of promoting change.

The Convention of Human Rights

The Convention of Human Rights contains a number of articles recognising the right to freedom of expression and thought. It also recognises the right to assembly and for individuals to come together to freely express themselves. The Convention also forbids interference from governments and public bodies such as the police to interfere with these rights. If the government or police do interfere then it is the public’s right to use legal processes such as the courts to enforce their rights.

The Police and Protests

Security measures in Britain are a concern for the government especially with growing fears over terrorist attacks. New criminal laws have been brought in that provides the police with extra powers when it comes to terrorist activities and anti-social behaviour. Peaceful protests in public space are a right but more and more public spaces are being restricted. It is now easier for the police to make the peaceful protest process difficult for demonstrators.

Key Factors to Peaceful Protests

There are a number of rights and regulations that pertain to peaceful protestors. These rights include:

• The right to assemble and protest on the public highway without permission from the police, council or other authorities.
• Protestors are not committing any crime as long as they are peaceful and do not use violence or threatening behaviour
• Protestors can assemble on the public highway as long as they do not completely block rights of way
• Trespassing on private land without permission is not a criminal offence
• Protestors can be removed from private land forcibly but should not be arrested unless they have used intimidation or aggravation
• Peaceful protests are not unlawful providing conduct is kept reasonable

Protest and Police Powers

There are a number of ways that the police will use their powers to keep crowd control during a protest. These can take the form of “stop and search” if they have reasonable suspicion. Recent changes have been made to stop and search laws so that the police can stop and search people in certain circumstances without the need for reasonable suspicion. The police can designate an area where people can be stopped and searched without suspicion under section 44. This process has been used to disrupt demonstrators, and the whole of London has been designated as a stop and search area under section 44.

Breach of the Peace

The police also have the power to arrest people if they feel a breach of the peace has been committed. The police can also stop demonstrators if they suspect that a breach of the peace may be about to occur. The use of anti social behaviour orders and dispersal orders have also been used to either prevent individuals from protesting or to break up protests. It is very important for protestors to use reasonable conduct during protests to ensure that the police are not given any reason to use force to break up a protest.

Injunctions

If demonstrators are protesting in front of a company building or corporation then the company may use an injunction to stop the protest. The injunction is a civil order and there can be criminal penalties for protestors that breach the injunction. Protestors can apply to the court and contest injunctions.

Peaceful protests are not unlawful, and it is the public’s right to assemble and mount a protest in a public place. So long as reasonable conduct and common sense are used during a protest there should be no reason for the police to intervene and disrupt a protest.

http://www.civilrightsmovement.co.uk/right-peaceful-protest.html

Contract Law: Basic principles of Duress

Duress refers to illegitimate pressure such as physical threats, which is used for an improper objective – sufficiently serious enough to gain the consent of the other party.

Threat of personal injury. Barton v Armstrong [1976] AC 104 concerned threat of death towards the managing director of a company, if he did not arrange for the company to buy shares from the defendant. The court said this was duress and the contract was voidable.

This case said that for duress to be established, it must be shown that the claimant entered into the contract as a result of illegitimate threats from the defendant (at least in part if not wholly).

Attorney General v R [2003] UKPC 22 was concerned with a former SAS solider who published his experiences of the Gulf War despite having signed a confidentiality agreement to say that he wouldn’t. The soldier claimed that he only signed since he was threatened with removal from the SAS. Although he originally won his case, on Appeal to the Privy Council it was held that the Army were within their rights to restrict disclosure of information and the pressure was not improper. Thus the confidentiality agreement was enforceable.

Lord Scarman identified two elements to duress:

                1. Pressure amounting to compulsion of the will of the victim.

                2. The illegitimacy of that pressure.

The threats do not need to be the sole reason for the claimant’s agreement to the contract although they do need to be a part of that reason. It is important to note that if a strong-willed claimant has shrugged off the threats, duress cannot be accepted as a reasonable claim even if a reasonable person might have been affected by them. 

2 QUESTIONS: Were the threats illegitimate? Was the claimant’s behaviour affected by these threats? IF THE ANSWER TO BOTH OF THESE IS YES THEN THE CONTRACT MAY BE SET ASIDE. The claimant may voluntarily enter into the contract, but it is still duress if they have only done so as a result of the threats. 

Did the claimant have any real alternative but to submit? The word ‘threat’ obviously carries some serious connotations suggesting physical harm however its modern usage usually simply means that the claimant is aware that to not enter into the contract will result in a particular action by the defendant. Threat must not be mistaken to mean ‘deliberate wrongdoing’ because in many circumstances, that is not the case.

The terms ‘illegitimate’ and ‘improper’ also carry connotations which suggest some deliberate wrongdoing on the part of the defendant, however a more helpful term is ‘inappropriate’ and this allows us to examine the reasonableness of the defendant’s conduct in the circumstance.

ECONOMIC DURESS – In commercial dealings, threats may often be made as a means of encouraging the other party to contract but this does not mean they will always be ‘improper’. E.g. “if you don’t contract we will take all our business elsewhere.” However for there to be duress, the threat must usually be unlawful. CTN Cash and Carry v Gallaher [1994] 4 All ER 714.

North Ocean Shipping Co v Hyundai Construction [1979] QB 705 was concerned with the devaluation of the dollar and how this led to the demand of more money for the construction of a tanker from the defendants. The court held that this was duress because the defendant’s threat to break the contract had no legal justification and left the claimants with no realistic alternative.

Atlas Express Ltd v Kafco Ltd [1989] QB 883. – Kafco were a tiny company with a valuable relationship with Woolworths. Kafco employed Atlas to deliver goods to Woolworths but Atlas made a miscalculation as to the quantity of goods they could fit onto one lorry. Kafco were demanded to pay more money for the extra journeys Atlas was going to have to make, or else Atlas would not deliver at all. Kafco could not risk their relationship with Woolworths and thus agreed to pay the extra but later refused to give the additional sum under the defence of duress. They succeeded with their claim as the courts held their relationship with Woolworths too valuable to jeopardise, and said they had had no other choice.

Remedies for duress: The remedy the victim will be seeking is ultimately to escape from the contract – RESCISSION (unmaking of a contract or unwinding of a transaction). Damages are never available for duress, even if the contract is rescinded. 

EU Law: Gender equality and pregnancy - has the EU done enough?

The EU has undoubtedly made substantial progress with regards to the laws on gender equality, moving from ensuring equal pay for work of equal value, to equal treatment in the work place and most recently pregnancy. The Pregnancy Directive 92/85/EEC has provided additional rights for those women already in work as opposed to those looking for work. The Dekker case, which occurred prior to the creation of the Directive, certainly demonstrates why further law was required in the area, as a woman was simply refused employment after interview on grounds of being pregnant.

However, since the enactment of the Directive, there have still been examples of discrimination. Webb for example, concerned an employee on maternity leave who was replaced with another female, who turned out to be pregnant. The employer dismissed the replacement woman on discovery of her pregnancy. Tele-Danmark concerned a lady who was successful at interview and was hired for the job, but later dismissed when the employer found out she was pregnant. Interestingly, the job in this case was only scheduled to be for a 6 month period, therefore it seems strange that the employer would dismiss the woman, unless she was in the last stages of her pregnancy, because she’d be able to complete most (if not all) of the work. In Melgar the woman had worked for the company for approximately 15 years, having had her contract renewed after each year of employment. However, on discovery of her pregnancy, the employer refused to renew her contract and the courts said that the employer must prove that the refusal to renew was based on some other reason (e.g. no longer needed her or she was no longer fulfilling her duties) other than pregnancy, otherwise he would be liable for discrimination.

Additionally, the case of Hertz demonstrated that the Pregnancy Directive will not protect women outside of their pregnancy or maternity leave. The woman was suffering from a pregnancy-related illness which caused her to take considerable absences from work after her maternity leave. The courts said that the employer was within his rights to dismiss her as the illness could no longer be related to the pregnancy and the time limit fell outside of the scope noted in Article 10 Pregnancy Directive. 

However, whilst the laws on pregnancy discrimination may be deemed far from perfect when attempting to protect women, it is in the area of paternity leave that the law shows a serious lack of development. Indeed, every child has two parents and it seems puzzling that whilst the EU has shown an intolerance to all other forms of discrimination, they would not show due concern for the fact that women are legally allowed time off work to bond with their new child, but men must continue to work. 

Cases such as Hoffman, in which a father was refused the state maternity benefit whilst on unpaid paternity leave, have demonstrated the severity of the situation. The court in Hoffman said that it had no interest in altering the gender roles from woman as mother and father as breadwinner. Similarly, Commission v Italy concerned a father who was refused the right to paternity leave; again demonstrating that fathers were being discriminated against. Thankfully, the recent case of Roca-Alvarez has shown a drastic change of heart with regards equal parenting rights; encouraging the notion of fathers gaining more and more rights. The Spanish authorities in Alvarez said that fathers were able to use part of the mother’s remaining maternity leave, when the mother returned to work. Interestingly, this is a topical issue in current news (May 2012) as the UK government have proposed to extend the rights of new fathers, allowing mothers in the UK to transfer the remainder of their maternity leave to their partners, where previously UK law had shown no interest in swapping gender roles.

Thus, whilst the EU has largely ignored the entitlement of males to take time off work to spend time with a new-born child, progress is finally being made some 10 years after the enactment of the Pregnancy Directive. However, whether that's down to the EU or individual member states is still under debate. Either way, it's clear that reform is still needed if men are to be given the same rights as their female counterparts; the benefits for men and women, were this to materialise, would be substantial. For males, the advantages speak for themselves - the chance to bond with their child, above all else! For females, the opportunity to return back to work following birth - it is often not fully acknowledged that women also have powerful and important roles aside from motherhood. It is also reasonable to assume that many of the on-going issues with discrimination against women on grounds of pregnancy would be combated if males were given the same rights to leave from work. 

Property: The Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 - a radical change?

A lease is the contractual agreement between two parties (the lessor and lessee), whereby one party pays the other for use of the land in question. Leases may entail certain additional agreements, known as leasehold covenants; for example, the covenant to pay rent. Additionally, leases may be assigned to a new owner; for example, where L (landlord) leases to T (tenant) for 50 years, T may reside for 10 years and then assign to A (assignee) for the remaining 40 years. On assignment of the lease, those leasehold covenants relating to the land will also pass to the new owner, mainly because the original parties would suffer a loss if the covenants could not be enforced against assignees. 

The enactment of the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995, which came into force on 1st January 1996, bought changes to the previous rules on leases (and the running of leasehold covenants) but unfortunately, despite attempts by the Law Commission, the new legislation cannot act retrospectively, meaning that leaseholds created prior to 1/1/1996 are treated differently to those created thereafter. For clarification, all leases before the Act will be referred to as ‘old leases’ and all leases after the Act as ‘new leases’.

Under old leases, 2 conditions were required in order for a lease to run with the land on assignment. Firstly, privity of estate (the relationship between a landlord and tenant whereby they may impose obligations on one another even in the absence of privity of contract); and secondly, ‘touch and concern’ (where the covenant relates to the demised premises rather than to a specific person) as governed by “Spencer’s case”, where a covenant to build a brick wall on the leased premises could bind the new owner because the wall would touch and concern the land. Lord Oliver in P+A Swift Investments said that ‘touch and concern’ required the covenant to benefit or burden the landlord or tenant; the covenant to affect the nature of the premises; and the covenant to not be personal. Note that for the assignment of a landlord’s reversion, rather than ‘touch and concern’, the covenant was required to ‘have reference to the subject matter of the lease’, although in essence there is little difference between the two requirements.

Once privity of estate and touch and concern had been established, when a tenant agreed to a covenant, he was not just promising to keep the terms of the lease, but also guaranteeing that any assignee would also adhere to those terms. In other words, the tenant was accepting liability for any breach committed by his own actions or the actions of his assignees or successors. Most leases would expressly state this term, but s.79 LPA ensured that where the parties omitted to expressly state liability, it would be implied by statute. This was the case even where the tenant disposed of his entire estate, as per Thursby v Plant. 

It’s worth noting that LDF v Avonridge Property established that tenant or landlord may expressly exclude liability where all parties were in agreement, although this is very rare because neither party want to suffer the repercussions of a breach without having a direct remedy through litigation.

Thankfully, following a much needed reform, the new legislation (Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995) was enacted. It is suggested that the reform was proposed in the 1980s when economic hardships were rife and the old leases were particularly harsh on original owners, who were, for example, forced to cover damages when their assignees failed to pay rent. 

The 1995 Act removed the existing rules and replaced them with ‘landlord covenants’ and ‘tenant covenants’, found under s.28(1). The requirement for touch and concern was removed in its entirety and s.5 of the Act states that when the tenant assigns his lease, he is released from both burden and benefit of the covenants attached to the estate; although personal covenants will continue to bind the original parties as found in BHP Petroleum v Chesterfield and now codified in s.3 (6)(a). City of London Corp v Fell established that every single time an individual passes over property, he will give up all benefits and burdens to the new owner; for example, where T assigns to A1 who assigns to A2 who assigns to A3. In addition, the 1995 Act provides that the s.79 LPA provision will not apply to new leases as they are immune from implied covenants on liability.

Interestingly, above it was mentioned that under s.5 the tenant will be released from his obligations when he assigns the lease to a new owner, however s.6 provides that landlords are not afforded the same level of ease when attempting to avoid liability. The landlord has the arduous task of gaining the tenant’s consent for release, complying with the procedures under s.8, or else applying to the courts. This has the effect of giving the tenant some power over the person providing him with accommodation. This may seem harsh on the landlord, who is acting, for all intents and purposes, bona fide, however without those powers the tenant could potentially be left homeless under the control of a new landlord. MacKenzie and Phillips remind us that whilst the landlord can have some say in the tenant’s choice of assignee, the tenant will have no say in the landlord’s choice of assignee even where he is not credit-worthy; thus the s.6 provision appears justified.

Moreover, the landlord, in controlling the choice of assignee, may require the original tenant to sign an authorised guarantee agreement (AGAs), as per s.18. Dollar, writing for the Landlord and Tenant Review journal, states that s.22 of the Act allows for the landlord to be unreasonable in his desire for an AGA; this made the provision the most controversial and debated by the Houses of Parliament. Neuberger J has since stated that it seems unattractive that the landlord should be entitled to be unreasonable, however the provision has not yet been repealed. The tenant’s signature is indicative of his promise to ensure the assignee will fulfil the necessary obligations; thus reinstating the liability which the new Act had aimed to alleviate. It is to be noted however, that although the tenant will hence be liable for his assignee, he will not be liable for any subsequent assignees. For example, where T assigns to A1 who assigns to A2 who assigns to A3; T can only ever be liable for A1. Furthermore, the Good Harvest v Centaur case demonstrated that the tenant’s guarantor cannot be expected to guarantee the obligations of anyone except the tenant he made the agreement for, relying on s.25 of the Act. 

It's worth noting that there are also provisions for the protection of the tenant, both pre and post 1996, such as the fact that the landlord can only take action against the former tenant within 6 months of any money becoming due; the landlord cannot enforce against the original tenant any changes to the covenant made after his assignment; and finally, the former tenant may apply for an ‘overriding lease’, thus making himself the immediate landlord of the current assignee tenant.

In conclusion, although prima facie it may appear that the Act has made significant changes to the rights of landlords and tenants who wish to assign their interest, in releasing them from ongoing, onerous liability, the ability of landlords to enforce AGAs has inevitably reduced the rights of the tenant. What the Act does do is make provisions for both parties substantially more reasonable so that whilst they may not still be entirely immune from liability after assigning a lease or reversion, the extent and nature of that burden is not cumbersome. Although individual parties may have hoped for a clause which provides complete immunity from legal accountability, this would not work in practise and ultimately encouraging tenants to take responsibility for their decisions in handing over the leasehold (or in the landlord’s case, the reversion), albeit on much fairer grounds, will inevitably produce a positive outcome for property law as a whole.