Issue Comment Link to Lexis+® UK guidance/external links To what extent is a represented party required to assist a litigant in person? A legal representative’s paramount duty is to the court and to the administration of justice. Subject to that, the legal representative’s duty is to the client. Practice Note: Litigants in person—duties of represented parties and useful resourcesThe Law Society—Litigants in person: guidelines for lawyers, paras 7–9Legal Services Act 2007, s 1(3) A legal representative must not abuse their position by taking unfair advantage of a litigant in person but there is no obligation to help a litigant in person run their case or to take any action on a litigant in person’s behalf. Practice Note: Litigants in person—duties of represented parties and useful resourcesSRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs, para 1.2SRA Code of Conduct for Firms, para 1.2The Law Society—Litigants in person: guidelines for lawyers, para 18 When exercising its powers of case management, the court must consider whether any parties are litigants in person (CPR 3.1A(2)).

THIS PRACTICE NOTE APPLIES IN RELATION TO SCHEMES THAT WERE CONTRACTED-OUT SALARY-RELATED SCHEMES BEFORE 6 APRIL 2016 Contracting-out on a salary-related basis (also known as DB contracting-out) was abolished on 6 April 2016. All contracted-out members therefore ceased to be in contracted-out employment on and from that date. For more information, see Practice Note: Abolition of DB contracting-out—an introduction [Archived]. For more information generally on contracting out, see Practice Note: What does ‘contracting-out’ mean for pension lawyers? This Practice Note describes the considerations that were applicable when a member of a contracted-out salary-related (COSR) scheme ceased to be in contracted-out employment: • before 6 April 2016, and • at a time when the scheme continued to be a COSR scheme Note that different considerations applied when a member ceases to be in contracted-out employment (before 6 April 2016) as a result of a scheme ceasing to be a COSR scheme. For more information on the considerations that were applicable in such circumstances, see Practice

THIS PRACTICE NOTE APPLIES IN RELATION TO SCHEMES THAT WERE CONTRACTED-OUT SALARY-RELATED SCHEMES BEFORE 6 APRIL 2016 Contracting-out on a salary-related basis (also known as DB contracting-out) was abolished on 6 April 2016. All contracted-out members therefore ceased to be in contracted-out employment on and from that date. For more information, see Practice Note: Abolition of DB contracting-out—an introduction [Archived]. For more information generally on contracting out, see Practice Note: What does ‘contracting-out’ mean for pension lawyers? This Practice Note describes the considerations that were applicable when a contracted-out salary-related (COSR) scheme ceased to be contracted-out before 6 April 2016. Note that different considerations applied when a member ceases to be in contracted-out employment (before 6 April 2016) at a time when the scheme continued to be a COSR scheme. For more information on the considerations that were applicable in such circumstances, see Practice Note: Considerations where member ceased to be in DB contracted-out employment before 6 April 2016 [Archived]. When did a scheme cease to be contracted-out? A

Summary Section 2B of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 (TCGA 1992) must be applied first, ie taxing the non-UK resident company on its post April 2015 gain on the disposal of residential UK property. This a charge to corporation tax on chargeable gains. If the companies mentioned

This Checklist summarises some of the key considerations for practitioners or litigants considering a possible appeal and reflects the provisions contained within CPR 52, CPR PD 52A, CPR PD 52B and CPR PD 52C. These provisions apply to appeals to the County Court, the High Court and the civil division of the Court of Appeal, but do not apply to appeals to the Supreme Court or appeals in detailed assessment proceedings, among other things. Before judgment is handed down in the lower court It is important to be prepared to appeal as early as possible given the short timescale for issuing an appeal. For guidance, see Practice Note: Starting an appeal—general provisions—When must the appellant's notice be filed? The following table sets out various issues that may arise together with further consideration as may be appropriate. Issue to consider Further consideration Guidance Is it likely that you or your client will want to pursue an appeal? What are the likely prospects of success and costs consequences? Appeals can be costly and counsel may need to be instructed so it is important

Affirmation and repudiatory breach Practice Note: Affirmation provides that affirmation is an indication of the intention to continue with a contract. Affirmation may arise in the case of: • a breach of contract, or • a misrepresentation which entitles the innocent party to rescind the contract Where there is a repudiatory breach of contract, the innocent party has two options: • accept the repudiation and terminate the contract, accepting the other party’s repudiation, thus bringing further performance under the contract to an end and entitling the innocent party to claim damages, or • affirm the contract despite the breach, carrying on performing the contractual obligations and demanding the other party perform their obligations too; as with acceptance, the innocent party

Local Government analysis: In this case the Court of Protection (District Judge Eldergill) considered whether it was in the best interests of MR, an 86-year-old man with advanced dementia and limited life expectancy, to remain at his current care home or to move to a Jewish care home. Having set out in detail the relevant legal framework and principles, the court had to decide how to balance MR’s religious and cultural identity against the high risk of adverse health consequences from the move, including a higher risk of mortality. The court concluded that while the question was very finely balanced, it was in MR’s best interests to move to a Jewish care home. Written by Leonie Hirst, barrister at Doughty Street Chambers.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: At a convening hearing under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) the High Court considered a proposed restructuring plan of a Hong Kong listed property company. Having satisfied itself that it had jurisdiction under Part 26A to consider the proposal, the court went on to reject a creditor’s objections to the plan proponent’s requirement for four different classes of creditors. In doing so, Mr Justice Thompsell provided helpful analysis of the authorities concerning class composition. The court also held that creditors were not prevented from raising points relating to class composition at any subsequent sanction hearing if they could offer an explanation as to why they had not done so sooner. While noting that it was not for the court to approve the proposed Explanatory Statement, Mr Justice Thompsell did require it to give greater prominence to the plan’s effect on shareholders given their absence from the four proposed creditor classes. Written by Ben Channer, barrister at 3 Hare Court.

The Housing Act 1988 (HA 1988) provides two main methods for landlords to bring an assured or assured shorthold tenancy (AST) to an end, being notice served under section 21 (the so-called ‘no-fault’ route to possession) or under section 8. Notice served under section 8 requires the establishment of one or more of the grounds set out in HA 1988, Sch 2 Pt I. The grounds in HA 1988, Sch 2 Pt I mandate the making of a possession order if made out, those in HA 1988, Sch 1 Pt II give the court a discretion as to whether or not to make a possession order if it considers it reasonable to do so. The

Private Client analysis: The court has ruled that a local authority and clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) are not required under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (MeHA 1983) to fund the visits of a mother to her son in a mental hospital. Spencer Gardner, solicitor at Coffin Mew, discusses the legal scope of MeHA 1983, s 117 and its practical implications.

Any person, organisation or government entity which receives a consignment.

This Agreement is made on [date] Parties 1 [insert name of supplier] [of OR trading as [insert trading name] of OR a company incorporated in [England and Wales] under number [insert registered number] whose registered office is at] [insert address] (Supplier); and 2 [insert name of customer] [of OR trading as [insert trading name] of OR a company incorporated in [England and Wales] under number [insert registered number] whose registered office is at] [insert address] (Customer) (each of the Supplier and the Customer being a party and together the Supplier and the Customer are the parties). Background (A) The Supplier conducts the business of supplying [insert description] to other businesses. (B) The Customer conducts the business of [insert description]. (C) The parties have agreed that the Supplier shall supply goods to the Customer on the terms set out in this Agreement. (D) To improve the efficiency of the Customer's supply chain, the Supplier has agreed to supply Goods to the Customer on a consignment stock basis and to allow the Customer to hold a consignment of the Goods on the Customer's premises. The parties agree: 1 Definitions and interpretation 1.1 In this Agreement: Affiliate