UK: Property & Insolvency Bulletin - March 2011


A comparison with last year suggests that nationally the number of insolvency situations have reduced but this does not tell the full story.

The retail sector has in the last few weeks seen off-licence chain Oddbins announce the closure of around 25% of its high street outlets and is widely expected to propose a voluntary arrangement with its creditors. In a similar vein Thorntons have indicated that some of their 600 stores may close. Bennetts, the East Anglian based electrical retailer, was placed into administration. Since the turn of the year the high street has also seen fashion retailers Krisp, Fenchurch and boutique fashion outlet Arrogant Cat amongst the casualties of a sector in which a slower than hoped-for Christmas trade, coupled with increases in VAT, inflation and business rates, following the last 5 yearly review, all appear to have taken their toll.

The retail sector is not the only sector affected. The holding companies of the Peverel Group, perhaps the largest property management company in the country, has been placed into administration following what appears to be a failure to secure a restructuring of its exposure to bank finance. This is the latest in a line of businesses in the property sector to suffer.

The common view is that the number of corporate insolvency situations (be they the appointment of receivers, liquidations, administrations or CVAs) will steadily increase throughout 2011 meaning that for those of us in the property sector the impact of insolvency on the property market will continue to be felt for some time to come.

The Chronicles of NAMA

Toward the end of 2009 the Republic of Ireland's then government passed legislation which would lead to the creation of the National Assets Management Agency (NAMA). The role of NAMA was a simple one: to remove toxic debt from the books of the Irish banks to assist in attempts to revive the national economy. The security would be acquired at a discount and purchased with Government backed bonds. In the first phase of NAMA (focusing on mortgages and other secured facilities with a minimum value of £20m) over £80bn in toxic debts were acquired. Whilst a significant amount of this debt was secured on assets located in Ireland, much (estimates range from £15bn and £20bn) is secured on property located in England's major cities as the Irish banks were keen (as of course were the major UK banks) to plough money into the British property market in the 10 years before the recent downturn. This means that the role of NAMA on the British property market cannot be ignored.

The role of NAMA: the review stage

Following the acquisition of these debts NAMA took time to analyse precisely what it had. It certainly appears that the Agency has completed its exercise and formed a view as to which assets it intends to sell (in order to release funds to subsidise the genuinely bad debts) and which assets it intends to try and manage (to ensure that the security is not jeopardised).

That NAMA is taking such steps is evidenced by its announcement of a panel of insolvency practitioners and property managers in November last year. It can also be seen from its recent actions both here and in Ireland.

The role of NAMA: the management stage

It was widely reported in the press that a deal has been struck to sell the recently completed Montevetro building in Dublin to internet giant Google for around £100m. NAMA acquired security over the building and funded the completion of the building before sanctioning its sale to Google.

The relationship between NAMA and the Maybourne Hotel Group, which owns Claridges amongst other luxury hotels, has also been the subject of much recent press coverage. Most recently that coverage has concerned the Dublin Supreme Court's decision that the acquisition by NAMA of Maybourne debt was of no effect, it having been purportedly acquired before NAMA had been legally established. However prior to that finding the stance taken by NAMA appeared to be a more humane one, providing the group with more time to secure alternative financing rather than seeking to force through a sale. This it believed it had the power to do prior to the decision of the Supreme Court. It should be said at this stage that the acquisition of the Maybourne loans is just one element of this ongoing litigation: the litigation concerns the very creation of NAMA itself and could impact upon its future role and indeed its very existence (which will be touched upon below).

Others have not been looked upon as favourably as Maybourne. Time appears to have been called on loans secured over One King William Street in the City of London (presently occupied by Rothschild) where receivers have been appointed. The same fate appears to have befallen Irish building companies McEnany Construction and Michael McNamara and Company. Logic would dictate that in all these cases NAMA sees the potential for realisation but needs to take steps to ensure that its security is not jeopardised. This could be through developing a cogent strategy for maximising rental income from a building, as might be so in the case of One King William Street, or ensuring that developments are completed, or development land is sold off at the best price reasonably achievable, as might be so in the cases of McEnany and McNamara.

The creation of a panel of property managers and insolvency practitioners, as well as the illustrations above, lead to the conclusion that NAMA is now in a position to take an active role in managing its assets.

The impact of NAMA on tenants

So far as tenants of NAMA - managed real estate are concerned this might result in a more aggressive management strategy, particularly in relation to rent and service charges, on the part of the landlord / NAMA as cash generation is maximised and unnecessary expenditure minimised. When it comes to the end of commercial leases tenants who wish to remain in business occupation may find it more difficult to agree terms with their landlord as NAMA's intention for the building will govern the stance that the landlord will take when it comes to granting new leases (or not as the case may be). However these changes aside the tenant ought not to experience any great change.

The impact of NAMA on debtors

The same cannot of course be said when considering the landlord or developer who would be the toxic debtor in the eyes of NAMA. NAMA has to date indicated a willingness to work with businesses (for example by providing a period of grace rather than calling in loans, appointing receivers rather than commencing a winding up). Perhaps this stems from its role as a state created bank with the intention of assisting in the economic recovery of Ireland. Perhaps however it is more to do with the power that NAMA has over its debtors and the extent to which a debtor is able to reject or modify that proposal.

The future for NAMA

The acquisition and management of loan books during the early part of 2010 was intended to be phase 1 of 3. Under phase 2 all remaining property loans (whether good bad or indifferent) held by AIB and Bank of Ireland would be acquired by NAMA and would undergo the same treatment as the larger loans acquired in phase 1. Phase 3 concerned the acquisition of specific categories of loan not falling within the first two phases.

Whilst it would appear that the role of NAMA within phase 1 of the project will not change in the immediate term, the future for phases 2 and 3 is now uncertain. Some say that the scope of phase 2 extends to poorly performing loans. Other say that phase 2 (and by extension phase 3) will not happen at all. The change in position is in some part driven by the anticipated introduction of a Labour / Fine Gael coalition and each party's stated intention to put a halt to bank bailouts. In other respects it is driven by ongoing court proceedings under which the creation of NAMA itself is being challenged, the outcome of which at present is not known.

Given the above we simply do not know what the future holds. If we assume that NAMA is to exist in its current form however, affected property owners and developers may find themselves between the proverbial rock and hard place whereas tenants may well find their landlords (under NAMA's influence) taking a more aggressive stance on matters of leasehold compliance, rent review and on lease renewal.

Whether this will remain the case under a new Irish Government remains uncertain.

Who has the last say? The Court of Appeal upholds a liquidator's decision despite creditor opposition

In Rubin v Coote [2011] EWCA Civ 106 (09 February 2011) the Court of Appeal has upheld the decision of a liquidator to settle litigation against a former director of a company notwithstanding the opposition of the company's creditors.

The liquidator of Branchempire Limited ('Branchempire') had negotiated a settlement of its claims against its former director Brian Henton and Lookmaster Limited ('Lookmaster'), a company controlled by him, whereby creditors stood to be repaid in full over a period of some two years. In order to complete the settlement the liquidator needed the sanction of the company's creditors under section 165 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the 1986 Act).

The creditors however refused sanction to the liquidator to settle, seeking immediate payment from Mr Henton of the sum due under the proposed settlement. Consequently, the liquidator made a successful application to the High Court for an order sanctioning the settlement, under section 165(2)(b) of the 1986 Act. Michael Coote, a former long leasehold tenant of Branchempire and its major creditor, appealed, contending that the terms of the proposed compromise were not in the best interests of the creditors. This was against a 'long history of dishonest evasion' by Mr Henton divesting Branchempire of its assets in favour of himself and Lookmaster. Mr Coote also alleged that, in reaching the compromise with Mr Henton, the liquidator failed to make proper enquiries into the assets of Lookmaster and Mr Henton. In support of this allegation Mr Coote sought to introduce a substantial amount of new evidence relating to Mr Henton's assets. In the event the Court of Appeal refused to admit this, mindful that this was relevant only to the question of timing of the proposed payment, not to the amount, and did not affect the overall prospects of the claims succeeding.

The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision, agreeing unanimously that the reasoning of the High Court was correct; the judge had been entitled to find that the £1 million settlement figure was acceptable given the chances of success in the litigation and the additional costs which further investigation and litigation would involve. The Court of Appeal noted that it had no impact on the fact that Mr Coote would have had a dividend of 100p in the £1 had he accepted the offer when it was made, even if he had to wait two years for it.

Regarding the discretion of the judge of first instance in approving the disputed compromise, the Court of Appeal took the view that the court must weigh the prospective benefit to creditors from the settlement against the possible benefits from the available alternative causes of action. Where, as in this case, there was a clear rationale for the settlement, the court was right to prefer the settlement instead of requiring the liquidator to continue to negotiate for an immediate payment that it was not clear was capable of being achieved.

The other interesting point of note arising out of the Court of Appeal's decision is that it clarified that the court can take into account the interests of creditors whose claims arise after liquidation has commenced, for example, the interests of the liquidator in relation to his unpaid fees (which were substantial by the time Mr Coote came to the High Court, standing at approximately £847,000). The Court appeared to agree with the liquidator that the potential fruits of investigating whether further assets were available to meet the creditors' claims would be outstripped by the costs of such investigations.

Considering the history of the claim and the lengths Mr Coote had to go to for payment of the sums due to him it is perhaps understandable that he expected the liquidator, who had been appointed largely as a result of pressure from Mr Coote himself, to have gone the extra mile to try and achieve earlier payment. The Court of Appeal nevertheless adopted a commercial and pragmatic approach thus avoiding the inevitable outlay of substantial further costs for an uncertain improvement in the timing and amount of payment to creditors.

Rent deposits – how do you keep them safe?

In the current climate, it is standard practice for landlords to insist on substantial rent deposits from tenants before a commercial lease is entered into. We all know why landlords ask for rent deposits. It is security for payment of the rent and performance of the tenant's covenants in the lease.

All those involved in property transactions will be familiar with the practice of completing a 'rent deposit deed'. The monies are commonly held by the landlord but owned by the tenant. The rent deposit is given to the landlord to place in a bank account which is opened in the landlord's name. Landlords should also be aware that (more often than not) a rent deposit arrangement creates a charge over the deposit monies which needs to be registered at Companies House. Why does it need to be registered, I hear you ask?

Assume you are a commercial landlord that has taken a deposit from a commercial tenant (a company incorporated in England or Wales) and entered into a rent deposit deed which allows you to take a first legal charge over the monies. If you fail to register the rent deposit at Companies House within twenty-one days of creation of the charge (i.e. within twenty-one days of the date of completion of the rent deposit deed) then you will render the landlord's charge over the rent deposit void. Late registration of a rent deposit deed outside of the twenty-one day period requires an Order of the Court, and is far from easy to achieve. Late registration cannot be considered an option.

If you are in the unfortunate situation that the tenant subsequently becomes insolvent and the charge was not registered, the landlord will have no preferential status as a creditor and will merely rank with all other unsecured creditors. This means that if your tenant becomes insolvent you are unlikely to ever see that rent deposit again.

If, however, the charge is registered at Companies House and your tenant becomes insolvent, the landlord is a secured creditor. The tenant's insolvency official cannot insist on the immediate return of the deposit monies for distribution to the tenant's creditors. In some situations the insolvency official may be able to insist on some legitimate deductions before return of the balance of the deposit monies, but largely the deposit should remain intact.

So the message here is make sure your rent deposit deed creates a registrable charge and make sure it is registered at Companies House within twenty-one days of creation. A technical point to note is that the twenty-one day period for registration includes bank holidays and weekends, and does not even stop running if the Registrar at Companies House identifies a defect in your application and returns it for correction. The registration must be done promptly and properly so that your rent deposit is kept safe!

Unfair prejudice to landlords & 'guarantee stripping' in company voluntary arrangements (CVAs)

A CVA was introduced as one of the rescue arrangements under the Insolvency Act 1986. It allows a company to settle unsecured debts by paying only a proportion of the amount owed, or to vary the terms on which it pays its unsecured creditors. Whilst a CVA only requires approval of a 75% majority of the creditors by value, it binds every unsecured creditor of the company, including any that voted against it or did not vote at all. The CVA can be challenged in one of two ways: a) on the ground that it unfairly prejudices the creditor's interest and b) on the ground that there was a material irregularity in the conduct of the meetings called to consider the CVA proposal.

In a case of Mourant & Co Trustees Limited and another v Sixty UK Limited (in administration) and others [2010] EWHC 1890 (Ch), Mourant (the landlord) applied to the court for the revocation of a CVA, proposed to rescue Sixty UK Ltd (Sixty), on the ground of unfair prejudice. Although, unfair prejudice is a principle that has already had much judicial consideration and indeed, the issue of guarantee stripping in this very context was considered in the well known Powerhouse litigation in 2007, the case of Mourant has provided further reassurance to creditor landlords. Mourant not only reinforced the decision in Powerhouse but went further still in prescribing the circumstances in which a CVA can 'fairly' release guarantors.


Sixty's obligations under the two Mourant leases were guaranteed by its ultimate Italian parent company, Sixty SPA (SPA). Sixty got into financial difficulties and a CVA was proposed. The effect of the CVA was to release SPA from all liability under guarantees upon payment of a sum of £300,000 to Mourant as landlords of the units. In return, Mourant were to be deprived of any recourse against SPA as guarantor during the remainder of the 10 year terms of the leases. The CVA also provided for two other stores occupied by Sixty to close, and for their landlords to receive 21% of Sixty's estimated liability to them under the relevant leases, which unlike the Mourant leases did not have the benefit of any guarantees. All other creditors under the CVA would continue to be paid in full, subject to normal terms and conditions and with the exception of the landlords of the closed stores no other external creditors were asked to accept any reduction in, or compromise of, their debts.

Mourant challenged the CVA on the following grounds:

  • The CVA left Mourant in a substantially worse position than on a liquidation of Sixty;
  • It was unfair in principle for the CVA to abrogate their contractual right against SPA under guarantees;
  • The estimate of Sixty's liability to the landlords adopted in the CVA was based on the unreasonable and unrealistic assumptions;
  • It was unfair to fix the amount of compensation payable to the closed store landlords in a predetermined sum;
  • The CVA treated the applicants differently from at least two other creditors or classes of creditors, without any proper justification; and
  • The CVA created no enforceable obligation upon SPA to pay any compensation in return for guarantee release.


The court agreed with Mourant's grounds for challenge and revoked the CVA, ruling that it was unfairly prejudicial to the landlord. The judge said that:

'In times of commercial and financial turmoil, the ability to enforce the terms of the existing leases against the guarantor......was a most valuable right, and there was no sufficient justification for requiring any of the guaranteed landlords (let alone just one of them) to accept a sum of money in lieu......To adopt such a procedure, in circumstances where the solvency of the guarantor is not in issue, is to undermine the basic commercial function of the guarantee, and to force the landlord to accept a commercially inferior substitute for it.'

The Judge went as far as to say that the CVA in question 'should not have seen the light of day'. He added that although it was not impossible to propose a fair CVA, greatest care was needed to ensure fairness, both in the substance and in the procedure that is adopted.

All in all this is good news for landlords and should provide encouragement to challenge the legality of CVAs which would otherwise unfairly limit landlords' ability to pursue solvent guarantors in circumstances for which the guarantees were given in the first place.

Extension of time to pay? Now face the consequences of insolvency

It is an age old problem for creditors who are faced with debtors who ask for more time to pay their debts. The Civil Procedural Rules (CPR) 14.9 and 14.10 allow for a debtor, following the admission of their debt, to request time to pay. It is open for a claimant to choose whether or not to accept a defendant's proposals; if the claimant does not accept the defendant's proposals, it is for the court to determine the time and rate of payment. The court's discretion conferred by CPR 14.10 to extend time for payment has not, until now, been examined. At the end of last year in Gulf International Bank v Al Ittefaq Steel Products Co and Others [2010] the High Court identified what it should take into account in exercising its discretion to extend time for payment of sums due following an admission.

The Facts

ISPC and ATHC owed G total sums in excess of US$100 million as a result of two promissory notes and a bridge loan facility. ISPC and ATHC admitted the claims. G applied for judgment on the basis of the admissions, whilst ISPC and ATHC made cross-applications seeking an extension of time, until 1 January 2011, to pay the sums admitted. ISPC and ATHC's total indebtedness to over 28 financial institutions was around US$2.2 billion. ISPC's and ATHC's previous attempts to negotiate to reschedule their debt had failed and they were attempting again to restructure their arrangements. ISPC and ATHC claimed that there was a real prospect that a rescheduling agreement would be finalised by 1 January 2011 if the extension sought was granted. In the absence of a rescheduling agreement, ISPC and ATHC claimed they would not be able to pay the US$100 million they owed to G. Further, if G sought to recover the sums due before 1 January 2011, ISPC would be forced into insolvency.

ISPC's and ATHC's application for an extension of time was made under CPR 14.9 and 14.10. CPR 14.9 sets out the procedure and the consequences where a defendant who makes an admission may request time to pay. A request for time to pay is a proposal about the date of payment or a proposal to pay by instalments at the times and rates specified in the request. If the claimant accepts the defendant's request the claimant may file for judgment. CPR 14.10 sets out the procedure to follow if the claimant does not accept the defendant's request. The court also has the power under CPR 40.11 to postpone the payment of sums in respect of which the creditor is entitled to judgment. CPR 40.11 provides that a party must comply with a judgment or order for the payment of an amount of money within 14 days of the date of the judgment or order. There also exists the power to give time to pay as part of the execution process, by which judgments are enforced, for example RSC Rule 47.1.

The Decision

The High Court noted that when exercising the discretion under CPR 14.10 they were bound to have regard to the interests of the relevant parties. Whilst the court did not have any previous decisions in relation to CPR 14.10 to which to refer it did take into account two decisions which had dealt with applications under CPR 40.11 (Gipping Construction Ltd v Eaves Ltd, Amsalem (t/a MRE Building Contractors v Raivid & Raivid). The court did not divert from the sentiment of these decisions and considered that an inability to pay will usually not justify a pre-execution extension of time, with an insolvent debtor having to take the usual consequences of his or its insolvency. The court held that whilst the interests of other creditors of the debtor, the debtor's workforce and suppliers will be engaged, a country's insolvency regimes are designed to take account of these interests. The protection of such interests are dealt with as part of specialist insolvency proceedings, supervised by specialist courts within whichever jurisdiction those proceedings occur. Therefore such interests will only rarely be a justification for an extension of time under CPR 14.10 or 40.11. The court held that it will only exceptionally extend time under CPR 14.10 and 40.11 and then only where the judgment debtor is solvent and for relatively short periods of time and after which the whole judgment debt will become payable.

On the facts of the particular case, the judge made it clear that the interests of the third party credit financiers did not justify the extension sought. The financiers were all commercial lenders and should be left to obtain such protection as they could secure in any insolvency proceedings. The judge stated that ISPC and ATHC must take the consequences of their insolvency. In his opinion there was no real prospect that G would sign up to a restructuring agreement before 1 January 2011, however he was not blind to the possibility that G might arguably be better off under such a restructuring deal and that, by obtaining judgment, G was attempting to improve its negotiating position with ISPC, ATHC and other creditors.

Practical implications

The decision illustrates the no-nonsense attitude of the courts in respect of requests for time to pay admitted debts. Whilst the decision does not create a binding precedent it appears the court's approach is consistent with earlier decisions in relation to CPR 40.11. The court will only exceptionally, and where there is a realistic prospect of payment, agree to extend time under CPR 14.10 and 40.11. It is perhaps of reassurance to a creditor that both before and after judgment is obtained the court's view remains that a debtor's mere inability to pay will not suffice to justify an extension in time. It therefore leaves parties with a choice of either accepting the consequences of their commercial arrangements or negotiating an alternative.

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.

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

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

Jennifer Chappell
Oksana Price
In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
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
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.