![Global rules on foreign direct investment](https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/-/media/images/nrf/nrfweb/knowledge/publications/us_24355_legal-update--fdi-alert.jpeg?w=265&revision=a5124a65-abf9-40e4-8e96-9df39ffdb212&revision=5250068427347387904&hash=96B456347C3246E5649838DF281C5F5D)
Publication
Global rules on foreign direct investment (FDI)
Cross-border acquisitions and investments increasingly trigger foreign direct investment (FDI) screening requirements.
Global | Publication | September 2018
Where a business tenant enjoys security of tenure under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (the 1954 Act), the landlord can only oppose the tenant’s claim for a new tenancy at the expiry of the contractual term on specific grounds.
These are set out in s.30(1) of the 1954 Act. The ground in s.30(1)(f) is: “that on the termination of the current tenancy the landlord intends to demolish or reconstruct the premises….or a substantial part of those premises or to carry out substantial work of construction…and that he could not reasonably do so without obtaining possession of the [premises]”.
The issue in S Franses Limited v The Cavendish Hotel (London) Limited [2017] EWHC 1670 (QB) was whether a landlord has the requisite “intention” if its only objective in carrying out works is to satisfy ground (f) in order to get rid of the tenant.
The tenant had served notice to renew its tenancy which was protected by the 1954 Act. The landlord sought possession of the premises on ground (f). The landlord gave an undertaking that the proposed reconstruction works would be carried out if possession was granted. However it also admitted that it only intended to carry out works if they were necessary to satisfy ground (f) and that its sole motive was to obtain vacant possession.
The court held that the landlord had established the requisite intention even though the works had no other commercial objective. The general trend of the authorities is that questions of motive are irrelevant in the context of ground (f) – this refers to “intention” not “motive” and the law traditionally recognises a distinction between the two.
A controversial decision? It would appear so, as the case has been allowed to leapfrog direct to the Supreme Court where it is to be heard on October 17, 2018. Given the widespread use of ground (f) we await the judgment of the Supreme Court with interest.
Publication
Cross-border acquisitions and investments increasingly trigger foreign direct investment (FDI) screening requirements.
Publication
On February 2, 2024, the Belgian Presidency of the Council of the European Union confirmed that the Committee of Permanent Representatives had signed the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Regulation, referred to as the AI Act. Approval by the EU Parliament followed on 13 March 2024, and the AI Act is likely to appear in the EU’s Official Journal around May 2024. The AI Act aims to establish a stringent legal framework governing the development, marketing, and utilisation of artificial intelligence within the region, thereby marking a significant advancement in the regulation of this burgeoning domain.
Publication
The EU’s Artificial Intelligence Regulation, commonly referred to as the AI Act, is expected to come into force during the summer of 2024 (the AI Act). The AI Act will be the first comprehensive legal framework for the use and development of artificial intelligence (AI), and is intended to ensure that AI systems developed and used in the EU are safe, transparent, traceable, non-discriminatory and environmentally friendly.
Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest legal news, information and events . . .
© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP 2023