Canada: Sheltering Under My Umbrella

Last Updated: May 13 2013
Article by Karen B. Groulx

There are certain things a lien claimant must do in order to assert the lien and then to keep it alive. Specifically, there are strict time requirements for "preserving" under section 34 of the Construction Lien Act1 (the Act), "perfecting" the lien under section 36 of the Act and for proceeding with the lien claim pursuant to section 37 of the Act. Generally speaking, pursuant to section 31 of the Act, a lien must be preserved by registration (where the lien attaches to the premises) within 45 days of the date of "last supply" and then must be perfected in one of two ways within 45 days of the date when the first 45 day time period would have expired. Pursuant to section 36 of the Act, the two ways are: 1) commencement of an Action and registration of a certificate of Action2; or 2) sheltering. A lien claimant may perfect its lien by "sheltering" it under another perfected lien. If an Action is commenced by lien claimant B to enforce a lien against the same property within the time limited for commencing lien claimant A's Action, lien claimant A will be protected or "sheltered" by lien claimant B's Action and it will be unnecessary for lien claimant A to commence its own Action.3 Provided a "preserved" lien has not expired (it was registered in time and more than 90 days have not elapsed since the date when the lien arose) the lien is "perfected" by sheltering as soon as any other lien claimant (having a lien arising from the same "improvement") commences an Action and registers a certificate of Action.

It is not enough to perfect a lien because a perfected lien can also expire. The Act requires that active steps be taken to move the action forwards. There is an "unforgiving" expiry date and if it is missed, "any person" may move without notice to have the lien declared as expired, to dismiss the action and to release any security. More specifically, section 37(1) of the Act provides that:

37(1) A perfected lien expires immediately after the second anniversary of the commencement of the Action that perfected the lien, unless one of the following occurs on or before that anniversary:

1. An order is made for the trial of an Action in which the lien may be enforced;

2. An Action in which the lien may be enforced is set down for trial.

In Deslaurier Custom Cabinets Inc. v. Le Group Brigil4("Deslaurier"), Master MacLeod considered the argument made by the developer of a condominium project that when lien claimants commence their own Actions, that they have elected "not to shelter" and must set down their own Action to avoid the consequences of section 37, namely, the expiry of their lien claims. That argument was rejected by Master MacLeod. The following case commentary will examine the "sheltering" rules including whether or not the "nature of the relief claimed in the statement of claim in paragraph 3 of section 36(4) of the Act, namely, Rule 3, means that a lien claimant can only shelter under a perfected claim for lien where the nature of the materials and services supplied by the perfected lien claimant are similar or identical to those of the sheltering lien claimant".

The Doctrine of Sheltering

The sheltering provisions contained in the Act are arguably an integral part of the "class proceeding" concept of the Act. Lien Actions differ from ordinary civil Actions in that every Action commenced to enforce a lien is an Action in which all of the other liens may be enforced because by operation of the Act all lien claimants will become parties to the Action at the time of trial.5 The sheltering rules can provide protection to lien claimants who do not need to incur the expense of issuing and serving Statements of Claim where liens have been perfected prior to the expiration of the lien of the sheltering lien claimant. However, a sheltered lien claim is perfected only as to the "defendants and the nature of relief claimed in the Statement of Claim under which it is sheltered".

The relevant section is section 36 and in particular, subsections (3) and (4) which provide as follows:

(3) How lien perfected - A lien claimant perfects the lien claimant's preserved lien,

(a) where the lien attaches to the premises, when the lien claimant commences an Action to enforce the lien and, except where an order to vacate the registration of the lien is made, the lien claimant registers a certificate of Action in the prescribed form on the title of the premises; or

(b) where the lien does not attach to the premises, when the lien claimant commences an Action to enforce the lien.

Pursuant to section 36(4) of the Act, a preserved lien is perfected by sheltering under a lien perfected by another lien claimant in respect of the same improvement. Subsection 36(4) of the Act provides four statutory sheltering rules:

1. The preserved lien of a lien claimant is perfected by sheltering under the perfected lien of another lien claimant in respect of the same improvement where,

i. the lien of that other lien claimant was a subsisting perfected lien at the time when the lien of the lien claimant was preserved, or

ii. the lien of that other lien claimant is perfected in accordance with clause (3) (a) or (b) between the time when the lien of the lien claimant was preserved and the time that the lien of the lien claimant would have expired under subsection (2).

2. The validity of the perfection of a sheltered lien does not depend upon the validity, proper preservation or perfection of the lien under which it is sheltered.

3. A sheltered claim for lien is perfected only as to the defendants and the nature of the relief claimed in the statement of claim under which it is sheltered.

4. Upon notice given by a defendant named in a statement of claim, any lien claimant whose lien is sheltered under that statement of claim shall provide the defendant with further particulars of the claim for lien or of any fAct alleged in the claim for lien.

The purpose of sheltering is to protect the liens of persons with very small claims for whom the prospect of retaining a lawyer and paying for a statement of claim was unreasonable.6 However, the potential consequences to the lien itself or to the jurisdiction of the Court over the lien are likely not worth what may amount to insignificant cost savings.

Background of Deslaurier

In Deslaurier, the developer of a condominium project brought a motion pursuant to section 46 of the Act for an order declaring that the lien of the Plaintiff Deslaurier had expired under section 37 of the Act and for associated relief including the release of security. Parallel motions were brought in two other Actions relating to the same construction project. Pomerleau Inc. was the general contrActor under a CCDC 3 cost plus construction contrAct, and Brigil was the owner. A dispute arose between Pomerleau and Brigil and as a result Pomerleau registered a lien for more than $5 million against the project. Although Pomerleau was the general contrActor with its own subtrades, Brigil had entered into direct contrActs with three finishing trades, Tripoli (for drywall), Deslaurier (for cabinets), and Jo-Peach (for painting). Each of Tripoli, Deslaurier and Jo-Peach registered their own liens against the property. Each lien claimant also started an Action and registered a certificate of Action on the following dates:

a. Deslaurier: Action 09-46161 commenced September 9th, 2009 (lien was registered, July 28, 2009)

b. Jo-Peach: Action 09-46119 commenced September 10th, 2009 (lien was registered, Aug 7, 2009)

c. Pomerleau: Action 09-46228 commenced September 16th, 2009 (lien was registered, August 5, 2009)

d. Tripoli: Action 09-46270 commenced September 18th, 2009 (lien was registered, August 6, 2009)

The parties had sought an order for joint case management of the Actions and had discussed proceeding by a judgment of reference. All of the plaintiffs assumed there would be a judgment of reference and the case conference would serve as the first hearing for directions under the reference rules or what in the Toronto prActice used to be referred to as the "first pre-trial". No judgment of reference had been obtained when the second anniversary of the first of these Actions approached.

On September 7th, 2011 the Pomerleau Action was set down for trial; none of the other Actions were set down. On September 28th, 2011 then counsel for the developer wrote to the plaintiffs and took the position that the Deslaurier, Jo-Peach and Tripoli liens which are the subject of these motions had expired.

Analysis in Deslaurier

In commencing his analysis, Master MacLeod noted that, although the Act is remedial legislation it creates a statutory remedy that did not exist at common law, and therefore it requires a liberal interpretation, at least with respect to the enforcement provisions set out in the Act. Authority for this proposition is found in the reasons of Sesco Ltd. v. Life Centre Non-Profit Housing Corp. (Ajax)7, ("Sesco") where after an extensive review of the authorities, the Divisional Court concluded that the sheltering provisions form part of the enforcement provisions of the Act and should therefore be given a liberal interpretation.8 The Court held that the Act must be given a strict interpretation in determining whether any lien claimant is entitled to a lien, but if a person passes that threshold and is found to be entitled to claim a lien, then the statute should be liberally interpreted with respect to the rights conferred upon the lien claimant.9 In reaching this conclusion the Court followed Ace Lumber Ltd. v. Clarkson Co.10 ("Ace Lumber") which stands for the principle that "[o]nce the existence of a valid lien is established, the enforcement provisions, being of a remedial nature, should be given as fair and liberal a construction as possible".11 The reason the Courts have given a liberal interpretation once the lien has been created and preserved by registration is that the enforcement of the lien is governed by provisions designed to bring about the realization in as summary and expeditious a manner as possible.12 It follows that the sheltering provisions form part of the enforcement provisions of the Act because they are part of the mechanism designed to bring about the realization in as summary and expeditious a manner as possible.13

As a preliminary matter, Master MacLeod observed that a preserved lien that has not expired can be perfected by sheltering as soon as any other lien claimant having a lien arising from the same "improvement" commences an Action and registers a certificate of Action.14 Master MacLeod also observed, that on the fActs of this case, had no other lien claimant stated an Action, they would all have remained sheltered under the Deslaurier lien which was perfected when the Deslaurier certificate of Action was registered on September 9, 2009.15 The Court also concluded that although the lien claimants are not subtrades of each other and all stand in a direct contrActual relationship with Brigil, the owner, there can be no doubt that the building they were all working on is the same "improvement" within the meaning of the Act.

Master MacLeod then went on to consider the impAct of section 37 of the Act, noting that perfected lien can also expire if Active steps are not taken to move the Action forward. Pursuant to section 37 of the Act, every perfected lien expires two years after commencement of the Action which perfected that lien, unless one of the two steps provided for in section 37(1) of the Act is taken: 1. An order is made for the trial of an Action in which the lien may be enforced; or 2. An Action in which the lien may be enforced is set down for trial.

The Pomerleau Action was set down before the second anniversary of the date on which the first of these Actions (Deslaurier) was commenced. In this case, the liens other than Pomerleau will have expired under section 37 of the Act unless the Pomerleau Action is "an Action in which the lien may be enforced" within the meaning of the statute. The Court found that the requirement is not that "the Action that perfected the lien" be set down for trial, but that "an Action" be set down.16 Lien Actions differ from ordinary civil Actions in that every Action commenced to enforce a lien is an Action in which all of the other liens may be enforced because by operation of the Act all lien claimants will become parties to the Action at the time of trial.17

This is consistent with the sheltering provisions, which provide that only one Action needs to be commenced to perfect all of the liens that are preserved but not expired.18 In addition, sections 51, 57(1) and 60 of the Act make it evident that all lien claimants will become parties to the Action at the time of trial.19 Sections 44, 65, 80 and 84 of the Act further evidence the fAct that all lien claimants are required to be before the court and bound by the result at the trial of any of the liens owing to the ultimate disposition of the land affected by the liens or of the security paid into court.20

Moreover, as will be discussed in greater detail below, a lien proceeding is similar to that of a class Action. As a result, every Action commenced to enforce a lien is therefore hypothetically an Action in which every lien arising from the same improvement may be enforced.21

The Court rejected the argument that when parties commence their own Actions they have elected not to shelter, which was analogized to opting out of a class Action. In addressing this argument the Court stated that if the legislature meant that the very Action which perfected the lien must have been set down for trial or ordered to trial, there would be no need for the saving language in the sub-section.22 Though the Act requires specific timely steps to preserve and protect lien rights, it does not require every party to duplicate every step.23

Ultimately, the Court held that the Pomerleau lien was an Action in which the other liens "may be enforced" and when it was set down for trial it was prior to the second anniversary of the date on which any of the Actions to enforce the liens were commenced. As such none of the other liens have expired under s. 37 of the Act.24

It is important to note that lien claimants cannot always rely on the Actions of other lien claimants to preserve their claims. If a particular lien has expired at the time the step is taken, it will not be saved by the Actions of the other lien claimant.25 More specifically, with respect to perfection under section 36(2) of the Act, relying on another party to commence an Action will not avail a lien claimant if that Action is not commenced before his own lien expires under section 36 of the Act.26 Similarly, relying on one of the other plaintiffs to set an Action down for trial will not save a lien that had already expired under section 37 of the Act before any of the Actions are set down.27

"Nature of the Relief Claimed" and Horizontal vs. Vertical Sheltering

In Sesco, the Divisional Court considered the proper interpretation of the phrase "nature of the relief claimed" contained in section 36(4)3 of the Act. More specifically, the Court considered whether "the nature of the relief claimed" in the statement of claim in paragraph 3 of section 36(4) of the Act means that a lien claimant can only shelter under a perfected claim for lien where the nature of the materials and services supplied by the perfected lien claimant are similar or identical to those of the sheltering lien claimant.

Paragraph 3 or "Rule 3" of section 36(4) of the Act states that a sheltered claim for lien is perfected only as to the defendants and the nature of the relief claimed in the statement of claim under which it is sheltered. In the lower Court decision of Sesco, the motions judge concluded:

In my view, the requirement in rule 3, that the lien be "as to" the nature of the relief claimed in the statement of claim of the perfected lien means that the statement of claim would have to claim a remedy (eg. payment of money) and also, as a basis for the claim, plead a description of the services and materials supplied which can reasonably be said to include the scope of services and materials claimed in the lien seeking shelter.28

As a result, the lower Court found that, since the statements of claim which could potentially provide shelter for the subcontrActors' liens at issue claimed relief in relation to specific services and materials which do not include any of the services and materials set out in the subcontrActors' Claims for Lien, those statements of claim cannot provide shelter and the subcontrActors' claims are not perfected. Moreover, since subcontrActors' preserved liens were not perfected within the time limit in section 36 of the Act, their liens have expired and cannot be pursued.29

The Divisional Court overturned this decision on appeal, concluding that when relief such as the enforcement of a lien has been claimed in a statement of claim by a party commencing an Action, then others claiming the enforcement of lien rights should be able to shelter under the existing claim. Moreover, the sheltered claims do not need to be for the same services and materials as are included in the perfected Actions.30

The Divisional Court held that the pleading requirements of Rule 25.06(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure31 requiring specification of the "nature of the relief claimed" should not be read into the interpretation of "the nature of the relief claimed" in Rule 3 of the Act.32 It is important to note that the Attorney General's Advisory Committee on the draft Construction Lien Act altered the words in Rule 3 from "nature of the claim" to "nature of the relief claimed".33 The words "nature of the relief claimed" entail only the remedies sought and not the substance of the claim.34

In addition, in support of its conclusion that the sheltered lien claimed does not need to be for the same services and materials as the sheltering lien claim, the Divisional Court adopted Kent J.'s analysis in Chute Construction Ltd. v. Biacan Construction Corp. (1997), 34 C.L.R. (2d) 1 (Ont. Gen. Div.) that a construction lien Action is akin to a class Action:

Once one contrActor or sub-contrActor commences an Action, a process is created whereby the defendant owner can know all claims being made against it and an adjudication process is available. Claimants, often small contrActors with small claims, are enabled to come to Court with whatever records they have and prove their claims, as was done in this case.35

Therefore, when relief such as the enforcement of a lien has been claimed in a statement of claim by a party commencing an Action, then others claiming the enforcement of lien rights should be able to shelter under the existing claim.36

In the article "Sheltering, Consolidation and Trial Together: The Construction Lien Action as a "Class Action"", authors R. Bruce Reynolds and Robert B. Pattison state that the effect of the Sesco lower court decision is to virtually eliminate the concept of "horizontal sheltering".37 Duncan Glaholt defines "horizontal sheltering" in his book, Conduct of a Lien Action, as meaning that "it does not matter which "stream" of privity of contrAct with the owner contained the lien" (i.e. applying the sheltering provisions of the Act liberally).38 In contrast, Glaholt defines "vertical sheltering" as meaning that "a lien clamant could only shelter under the claim of someone in that lien claimant's own "stream" of privity of contrAct with the owner" (i.e. applying the sheltering provisions of the Act strictly).39 In other words, if horizontal sheltering is eliminated, a subcontrActor or supplier is effectively prevented from sheltering under the statement of claim of a Plaintiff sub-contrActor or supplier in the same class.40

As a result, the Divisional Court in Sesco found that, using a liberal interpretation, the words "nature of the relief claimed" do not require that a sheltered claim for a lien would only be perfected where the remedy claimed and the services and materials supplied could reasonably be said to be included in the scope of services and materials described in the statement of claim under which it sought to be sheltered.41 Rather, the words "nature of the relief claimed" set out in the Act refer only to the remedies sought as opposed to the substance of the pleading itself.42 Further, since sheltering provisions are part of the mechanisms designed to bring about realization in as summary and expeditious a manner as possible, it would be unreasonable to interpret the sheltering provisions in a manner that effectively eliminates horizontal sheltering.43

Reverse Vertical Sheltering

In Buttcon Ltd. v. Beaver Construction Services Corp.44 the Court rejected the plaintiff's argument that a contrActor's lien cannot be perfected by sheltering under the properly perfected lien of its own subcontrActor, known as "reverse vertical sheltering". This proposition was rejected on the basis that there is no case law supporting the position that "reverse vertical sheltering" is not available under section 36 of the Act.45 Further, following Ace Lumber, the Court held that once a valid lien is established, the enforcement provisions should be given a fair and liberal construction, since they are remedial in nature.46 Finally, the Court espoused the principle enunciated in Sesco that the sheltering provisions of the Act form part of the enforcement provisions and are a part of the mechanism designed to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings and to provide a summary and expeditious remedy.47

Risk of Sheltering

Since a lien is only sheltered as to "the defendants and the nature of the relief" claimed in the statement of claim, there can be consequences when sheltering, particularly where the sheltering claim is a nullity.48 In M&S Roofing and Sheet Metal Ltd. v. Arthur J. Fish Ltd. a subcontrActor, M&S, filed a lien claim subsequent to that of another subcontrActor, IF Inc. In this Action M&S moved to set aside an order determining that its lien had expired and to set aside an order for the delivering up of the bond filed by the general contrActor, Arthur J. Fish Ltd. Although M&S had not commenced an Action to enforce its lien, it purported to shelter its lien claim under the perfected lien of IF Inc., which had commenced an Action. To set aside an order declaring that the lien had expired, M&S was required to show that its lien had been perfected pursuant to the Act.49 Since M&S had not commenced an Action, the only way it could perfect its lien is by sheltering under the lien of IF Inc., i.e. it must come within the provisions of section 36(4) of the Act.50 Although IF Inc. had commenced an Action, it did not commence an Action to enforce its lien pursuant to section 36(3)(a) of the Act.51 Instead, the Action was only against Fish, the general contrActor, and not against the owner of the property. In addition, there was no claim in IF Inc.'s Action to enforce the lien.52 Pursuant to section 36(4)2, the M&S lien could still be perfected even though the lien under which it is sheltering has not been properly perfected, however, it is perfected only as to the defendants and the nature of the relief claimed in the statement of claim.53 Therefore, the M&S lien is only against the defendant contrActor Arthur J. Fish and not the owner, and is only for the relief claimed in the IF Inc. statement of claim.54 As a result, the M&S lien was not properly perfected and its motion was dismissed.55

Conclusion

Although sheltering can be extremely valuable to a lien claimant whose preserved lien may have otherwise expired (unless it can take advantage of the sheltering rules), the above cases demonstrate that sheltering has some risk and should not be relied upon in all cases as a legitimate alternative to commencing an Action to perfect a lien claim, but rather should be considered as a safety net when other avenues are no longer available.

Footnotes

1 R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.30.

2 Where the lien does not attach to the premises, in order to perfect the preserved lien, the lien claimant is required to commence an Action to enforce the lien, or may seek to "shelter" under the lien of another lien claimant in accordance with the provisions of section 36(4) of the Act.

3 Section 36(4) of the Act.

4 2012 CarswellOnt 7205, 2012 ONSC 3350 (Ontario Master). ["Deslaurier"]

5 Ibid at para.16.

6 Duncan Glaholt, Conduct of a Lien Action, 2013 ed, (Toronto: Carswell, 2012) at 43.

7 1998 CarswellOnt 291, leave to appeal refused 1998 CarswellOnt 1430 (Ont. C.A.). ["Sesco"]

8 Ibid at para. 34.

9 Ibid at para. 32.

10 [1963] S.C.R. 110, 36 D.L.R. (2d) 554, 4 C.B.R. (N.S.) 116 (S.C.C.). ["Ace Lumber"]

11 Sesco at para. 15.

12 Ibid at para. 16.

13 Ibid at para. 34.

14 Deslaurier at para. 11.

15 Ibid.

16 Ibid.

17 Ibid at para.16.

18 Ibid.

19 Ibid.

20 Ibid at para. 17.

21 Ibid at para. 18.

22 Ibid at para. 34.

23 Ibid.

24 Ibid at para. 33.

25 Ibid at para. 19.

26 Ibid at para. 20.

27 Ibid at para. 21.

28 Sesco Ltd. v. Life Centre Non-Profit Housing Corp. (Ajax), 1996 CarswellOnt 3349, 30 O.R. (3d) 449 (Gen. Div.) at para. 46.

29 Ibid at para. 54.

30 Sesco at para. 55.

31 R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194.

32 Sesco at para. 46.

33 Ibid at para. 47.

34 Ibid at para. 57.

35 Ibid at para. 50.

36 Ibid at para. 50.

37 R. Bruce Reynolds and Robert B. Pattison, "Sheltering, Consolidation and Trial Together: The Construction Lien Action as a "Class Action"", (1996) 29 C.L.R. (2d) 214 at 231.

38 Duncan Glaholt, Conduct of a Lien Action, 2013 ed, (Toronto: Carswell, 2012) at 45.

39 Ibid.

40 Reynolds and Pattison at 231.

41 Sesco at para. 55.

42 Ibid at para. 57.

43 Ibid at para. 56.

44 51 C.L.R. (3d) 150, 145 A.C.W.S. (3d) 28.

45 Ibid. at para. 21.

46 Ibid.

47 Ibid.

48 Duncan Glaholt, Conduct of a Lien Action, 2013 ed, (Toronto: Carswell, 2012) at 44.

49 Ibid at para. 14.

50 Ibid at para. 15.

51 Ibid at para. 18.

52 Ibid.

53 Ibid.

54 Ibid at para. 19.

55 Ibid at para. 22.

About Dentons

Dentons is a global firm driven to provide you with the competitive edge in an increasingly complex and interconnected marketplace. We were formed by the March 2013 combination of international law firm Salans LLP, Canadian law firm Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP (FMC) and international law firm SNR Denton.

Dentons is built on the solid foundations of three highly regarded law firms. Each built its outstanding reputation and valued clientele by responding to the local, regional and national needs of a broad spectrum of clients of all sizes – individuals; entrepreneurs; small businesses and start-ups; local, regional and national governments and government agencies; and mid-sized and larger private and public corporations, including international and global entities.

Now clients benefit from more than 2,500 lawyers and professionals in 79 locations in 52 countries across Africa, Asia Pacific, Canada, Central Asia, Europe, the Middle East, Russia and the CIS, the UK and the US who are committed to challenging the status quo to offer creative, actionable business and legal solutions.

Learn more at www.dentons.com

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances. Specific Questions relating to this article should be addressed directly to the author.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Events from this Firm
27 Nov 2018, Other, Toronto, Canada

Dentons is pleased to sponsor the Global Property Market Forum taking place November 27, 2018 in Toronto.

27 Nov 2018, Conference, Toronto, Canada
Dentons is pleased to sponsor the Global Property Market Forum taking place November 27, 2018 in Toronto. This one day forum provides participants with an intimate and informative opportunity .
30 Nov 2018, Conference, Toronto, Canada

Dentons is proud to be the presenting sponsor for Autonomous Vehicle P3s: Visions of the Future at this year’s CCPPP conference in Toronto on Nov 5-6, 2018.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions