This Practice Note outlines the rule that, with effect from 8 July 2015 (or 15 July 2015 in the case of corporate partners): • prevents banking companies from claiming a tax deduction for certain compensation expenses, and • adds a sum equal to 10% of the non-deductible compensation expense to the relevant banking company’s taxable profits This Practice Note does not cover the tax treatment compensation payments by banks in the hands of the recipient. Cases such as O’Neil v HMRC and Hackett v HMRC have considered this issue. For more information, see Practice Note: Direct tax treatment of damages and compensation payments. Reasons behind the rules The government introduced the rules providing for the non-deductibility of compensation payments made by banks, and treating banks as receiving a notional trade receipt of 10% of the non-deductible amount, to: • ‘protect the Exchequer from banks’ past management failures’, and • ‘ensure the [banking] sector makes an appropriate contribution to restoring the public finances’ This

The CRU as part of the Department for Work and Pensions recovers social security benefits paid as a result of an accident, injury or disease, if a relevant compensation payment has been made. They also recover costs incurred by NHS hospitals and ambulance services.

This Practice Note details the general principles of compensation, sharing and equality, together with needs, and their application by the court as part of the judicial exercise of discretion in financial order proceedings. It considers the key decisions in White v White, Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane and subsequent case law, and Standish v Standish. The House of Lords' decision in White v White set the direction for the general principles on which financial order cases are determined. Before White, awards in high net worth cases were limited by reference to the financially weaker party’s ‘reasonable requirements’. Once such needs had been met, the financially stronger party could be left with a considerably greater share of the available resources. White made fairness the objective in financial proceedings, judged against what the House of Lords called ‘the yardstick of equality’. Post-White, equality should only be departed from if there is a good reason for doing so. The House of Lords' intention was to end financial discrimination between a breadwinner

An award of compensation made by an Employment Tribunal.

Compensatory damages may be awarded on the basis of expectation (or performance) interest or reliance interest. Expectation of a benefit or performance resulting in a benefit or a reliance on a benefit.

Competency—general rule The most common way for evidence to be adduced is through the testimony of a witness. A witness is said to be competent if they can, as a matter of law, be called by a party to give evidence. All people are deemed competent to give evidence, whatever their age, at every stage in criminal proceedings, with two exceptions: • a person is not competent to give evidence in criminal proceedings if it appears to the court that they are not able to understand questions put to them as a witness and give answers to them that can be understood • a person charged in criminal proceedings is not competent to give evidence in the proceedings for the prosecution (whether they are tried alone or with a co-accused) (see further below: The accused—evidence on behalf of the prosecution) There are no presumptions or preconceptions tied into this statutory test. There can be no challenge to competence based on chronological age or mental capacity, for example, without demonstrating that the person

Under Article 17 of the NIS Directive, each EU Member State is required to designate one or more national competent authorities on the security of network and information systems. In the UK, the government decided that a multiple Competent Authorities approach, with each Competent Authority having a detailed understanding of the individual sectors and their associated challenges, was the most appropriate approach, and this approach continues post-Brexit. NIS Regulations, Sch 1 lists the Competent Authorities that have been designated for each sector or subsector.

In the context of Part VI of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA 2000), the conduct-authority'>Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). In relation to other aspects of financial services regulation or supervision, the full definition in the FCA Handbook should be consulted.

Property Disputes analysis: The case concerned a defended claim for the renewal of a business tenancy under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954). The landlord’s defence was pursuant to ground (f), being that the landlord reasonably required possession for substantial works. There was an important sub-issue as to the extent of the tenant’s holding, and this turned on the definition of that word in LTA 1954, s 30 and whether it was the same or distinct from the term ‘holding’ in LTA 1954, s 32 (property to be comprised in new tenancy). The impact was the scope of the court’s assessment of what was practical in terms of the works. The court found that ‘holding’ meant something different in section 32 than it did in sections 23 and 30. Written by Lauren Godfrey, barrister at Gatehouse Chambers.

More than one contemporaneous offer for the same offeree.

Construction analysis: In a case concerning a contract for the installation of electrical equipment and cable circuits, the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) held that the substation owner’s decision to carry out a more expensive remedial scheme in relation to its contractor’s defective cable circuit work (which did not require significant power outages, compared to another suitable scheme which did) was reasonable in circumstances where: (i) the substation owner had a wider business and reputational interest in maintaining the connection; (ii) there was a public interest in maintaining electricity generation; and (iii) the solar farm owner requested the substation owner to avoid power outages and had offered a financial contribution, subject to recovery, to the additional costs involved to keep the ability to generate electricity (thereby protecting itself from revenue losses due to outages).

Information Law analysis: The High Court handed down a judgment on 7 June 2024 ruling that the Claimant was not entitled to know the identities of recipients of recordings of phone calls, during which he had subjected the director of a supplier company (and the director’s family) to verbal threats. The Court found that the Defendant would have a legal requirement, under Article 15(c) of Assimilated Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (UK GDPR), to disclose the identities in response to the Claimant’s data subject access request (DSAR). However, the ‘rights of others exemption’ applied in this context as it would be unreasonable for the Defendant to disclose third-party data (ie recipients’ identities) on the basis of safety concerns. The Court also considered other data protection issues, such as the definition of ‘controller’, the scope of the ‘personal or household activities’ exemption and the relevance of both EU case law and UK case law which considered the old data protection regime. Written by Marija Nonkovic, associate at Kemp IT Law.