We have assumed that: ‘…the member of the RAC has provided a written nomination to the trustees of the retirement annuity contract, requesting (but without imposing any legal obligation) that the trustees distribute the death benefits to the trustees of the pilot trust. both the RAC and the SIPP are subject to the registered pension scheme regime established under Chapter 2 of Part 4 of the Finance Act 2004 this

Under section 13 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (LRHUDA 1993): ‘(1) A claim to exercise the right to collective enfranchisement with respect to any premises is made by the giving of notice of the claim under this section… (3) The initial notice must— (a) specify and be accompanied by a plan showing— (i) the premises of which the freehold is proposed to be acquired by virtue of section 1(1), (ii) any property of which the freehold is proposed to be acquired by virtue of section 1(2)(a), and (iii) any property over which it is proposed that rights (specified in the notice) should be granted in connection with the acquisition of the freehold of the specified premises or of any such property so far as falling within section 1(3)(a) [Note: this reference in the statute

Public Law analysis: The Police Service of Northern Ireland had a policy of taking photographs, fingerprints and a DNA sample and profile (biometric data) from all persons arrested for a recordable offence and retaining that data indefinitely for those convicted (the policy). The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), applying principles established in its decision in Marper v UK, held that the policy amounted to a disproportionate interference with Mr Gaughran’s right to respect for his private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It held that the indiscriminate nature of the powers of retention without reference to the seriousness of the offence or the need for indefinite retention and in the absence of any real possibility of review, failed to strike a fair balance between the competing public and private interests. Written by Jonathan Lewis, barrister, at Henderson Chambers.

The court has determined the mesne profits payable until the tenants vacate. Therefore, the first question is whether the court has any jurisdiction to vary its order if the value of those profits increased? We are not aware of any direct authority on this point. The court has power under CPR 3.1(7) to vary final orders. However, the case law is clear that this power will only be used in exceptional circumstances to vary final sealed orders–see Vodafone Group PLc v IPcom GmbH and Co KG. It

Law360, Expert analysis: The EU has handed its courts a powerful new weapon against Russian efforts to derail international arbitration.

Privilege and confidentiality Privilege is a special protection afforded to communications between lawyers (and in certain circumstances, third parties) and their clients. The key principle is that a person should be able to consult with their lawyer freely, assured that the confidence in any information provided will be maintained and protected. Privilege accordingly provides a right to resist disclosure of a document where permitting the inspection of such document might otherwise be compulsory. For an overview of the meaning and rationale underpinning privilege, see Practice Note: Privilege—general principles. Privilege can only be claimed in respect of documents which are confidential and only if certain further conditions are satisfied. It follows that if a document ceases to be confidential, it will not be possible to claim privilege in the future. In providing access to privileged advice, an obvious concern is that confidentiality may be lost which will disadvantage the company, and the proposed

We have assumed that: • the landlord does not own the neighbouring property • there is nothing in the title re maintenance of the fence • the fence does not fall within the Party Wall etc Act 1996, and • there is no contractual relationship between the landlord and the person responsible for the fence In absence of any party wall agreement or covenant within the title deeds relating to maintenance, there aren’t many legal options available to force a neighbour to fix their damaged fence. There may be a course of action available should the fence present a danger to the highway or occupiers of adjoining land however. Commentary: Liability for dangerous fences: Halsbury's Laws of England provides that: ‘A

Arbitration analysis: The decision of the Commercial Court (Mr Justice Trower ) in Seacrest Group Ltd v BCPR Pte Ltd included a number of findings that are likely to be of importance to arbitration practitioners. One that may have a significant impact is the court’s findings in relation to the status of statements made by a tribunal after it has rendered its award, in particular the relevance and admissibility of such statements as evidence in the context of a challenge to an arbitration award. Written by Rupert Hamilton, barrister at Twenty Essex Chambers.

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is no longer maintained. It provided information on the enforcement approach of the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) with regards to bribery and corruption offences under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act 1977 (FCPA 1977) prior to the Executive Order of February 2025 pausing all investigations and prosecutions under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and the later publication of revised DOJ guidelines for investigations and enforcement of the FCPA. For further information, see the DOJ FCPA Guidelines as well as News Analyses: Foreign countries have strong foundation to fill FCPA void, DOJ signals major shift in white collar enforcement priorities and Feds reboot FCPA agenda with narrower enforcement focus. The US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 (FCPA) is part of US federal law, which prohibits corrupt payments to or for foreign public officials. It is, therefore, the US equivalent of the Bribery Act 2010 (BA 2010) (and preceding UK legislation) dealing with bribery

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is no longer maintained. It provided information on the investigatory authority of the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) with regards to bribery and corruption offences under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act 1977 (FCPA 1977) prior to the Executive Order of February 2025 pausing all investigations and prosecutions under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and the later publication of revised DOJ guidelines for investigations and enforcement of the FCPA. For further information, see the DOJ FCPA Guidelines as well as News Analyses: Foreign countries have strong foundation to fill FCPA void, DOJ signals major shift in white collar enforcement priorities and Feds reboot FCPA agenda with narrower enforcement focus. The US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 (FCPA) is part of US federal law, which prohibits corrupt payments to or for foreign public officials. It is, therefore, the US equivalent of the Bribery Act 2010 (and preceding UK legislation) dealing with bribery and corruption though

This Practice Note looks at dealing with an application for a licence for alterations under an existing commercial lease (eg as a lease management transaction). It sets out the context of when and why a tenant makes an application for consent to carry out works and the commercial drivers for the landlord and tenant. It then gives an overview of the transaction process and walks you through the key legal and commercial considerations. A tenant’s lease governs the extent to which it may make alterations to the demised premises. For guidance on negotiating an alterations clause in a lease, see Practice Note: Negotiation guide—alterations clause—commercial leases. This Practice Note does not cover the additional considerations that apply to alterations to an existing higher-risk building (eg subject to certain exclusions, a building that is over 18 metres or seven storeys high and that is of a description specified in regulations—broadly (i) hospitals, (ii), care homes, or (iii) buildings that have at least two residential dwellings (in England), or one residential dwelling

This Practice Note looks at dealing with an application for a licence to assign an existing commercial lease (ie as a lease management transaction). It sets out the context of when and why a tenant makes an application for consent to assign and the commercial drivers for the landlord and tenant. It then gives an overview of the transaction process and walks you through the key legal and commercial considerations. A tenant’s lease governs the extent to which it may dispose of the premises by assigning its lease. For guidance on negotiating an assignment clause in a lease, see Practice Note: Negotiation guide—alienation clauses—commercial leases. Understanding the commercial context—background and key concerns Almost without exception, commercial leases contain some form of limitations and conditions on the tenant assigning the lease. See ‘Is landlord’s consent required to the assignment?’ below. Tenant—key commercial drivers and issues A tenant can make an application to assign at any time during the lease term. The ability to assign the lease is key to unlocking options for the tenant