[(1) For the purposes of this Part, a person (“A”) acquires control over a UK authorised person (“B”) if any of the cases in subsection (2) begin to apply.
(2) The cases are where A holds—
(a) 10% or more of the shares in B or in a parent undertaking of B (“P”);
(b) 10% or more of the voting power in B or P; or
(c) shares or voting power in B or P as a result of which A is able to exercise significant influence over the management of B.]
**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 thousands of others like it, sign-in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial.
Existing user? Sign-in
Take a free trial
Enforcing a warrant of controlThis Practice Note has been produced by enforcement specialists, The Sheriffs Office. It guides users through the process of enforcing a warrant of control obtained from the County Court as a method of enforcing a money judgment; whereby the judgment creditor takes
Pension commencement lump sums (PCLSs)When a member of a pension scheme becomes entitled to receive their scheme benefits, they can usually take part as a tax-free lump sum. HMRC calls this a ‘pension commencement lump sum’ (PCLS). Taking a lump sum is usually at the option of the member who will
This Practice Note addresses issues when serving out of the jurisdiction and the permission of the court is required. It explains how to make an application and the form of order required. An application to serve out of the jurisdiction is generally made without notice and on the papers. Key
Costs and the ‘without prejudice’ ruleCosts determination and the ‘without prejudice’ ruleAn issue for practitioners is whether correspondence marked ‘without prejudice’ can be used against a party when the court comes to determine the issue of costs. The Court of Appeal in Walker v Wilsher (1889)
0330 161 1234
To view the latest version of this document and millions of others like it, sign-in to LexisLibrary or register for a free trial.