The function of deciding a case where a request for review has been duly served on the Civil Aviation Authority ('CAA')1 is a function which may not be performed on behalf of the CAA by any other person; for the purpose of making a decision in such a case, the quorum of the CAA is one member2. The CAA may appoint technical assessors to sit with it3. Before reaching its decision the CAA must consider any representations which may have been served
**Trials are provided to all LexisPSL and LexisLibrary content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
To view the latest version of this document and millions of others like it, sign-in to LexisLibrary or register for a free trial.
EXISTING USER? SIGN IN
TAKE A FREE TRIAL
Broadly, the doctrine of overreaching enables purchasers (which includes tenants and mortgagees) in good faith for money or money’s worth to rely solely on the legal title. In the case of registered land, this means the entries entered on the register of title, as it records ownership of the legal
Part 8 of the Corporation Tax Act 2009 (CTA 2009) is a specific corporation tax regime that applies exclusively to the gains and losses of intangible fixed assets. Note, however, that certain intangible fixed assets are excluded from the regime, see Practice Note: Excluded intangible fixed
There may be times when, rather than assigning the benefit of an agreement to a third party, the original parties wish instead to end their obligations to each other under that agreement and, in effect, recreate it, with the third party stepping into the shoes of one of the original parties. This is
This Practice Note considers the doctrine of forum non conveniens, also referred to as the appropriate forum or the proper place for a dispute to be determined. This doctrine is of relevance when determining whether the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction to hear a dispute and is applied
0330 161 1234