Property Disputes analysis: The High Court dismissed an appeal against the dismissal of a claim for sequential penalties under the tenancy deposit legislation. Most of the claim had been time-barred under section 9 of the Limitation Act 1980. The remainder turned substantially on whether a certificate containing prescribed information which (1) contained an obvious error, and (2) was unsigned, was nonetheless sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirements within section 213 of the Housing Act 2004, and the ancillary 2007 Order. The court concluded it was. This decision will be of great interest to all residential landlord and tenant practitioners. Written by Shomik Datta, barrister at Cornerstone barristers, who acted on behalf of the respondent.

One of the clearing systems used for European debt securities offerings (for US dollar denominated offerings).

One of the clearing systems used for European debt securities offerings (for US dollar denominated offerings)

This is a type of regulated investment as defined in article 74 of the Regulated Activities Order.

TMT analysis: The High Court has found that actor Johnny Depp failed to fully comply with disclosure obligations which had been set out in an earlier ‘unless’ order. Mr Depp was held to have failed to disclose text messages relating to the procurement of drugs, despite their relevance to the parties’ pleaded cases. However, the court declined to strike out the case pending its hearing of Mr Depp’s application for relief from sanctions (and in a later judgment, Mr Depp’s application was granted).

For the purposes of rollover relief, a depreciating asset is defined as a wasting asset under s.44 TCGA 1992 or an asset which will become a wasting asset within the period of 10 years (s.154(7) TCGA 1992).

The charge in a company’s accounts which reflects the reduction in value of an asset over time as its useable life is exhausted. Depreciation is charged before calculation of profit, on the grounds that the use of capital assets is one of the costs of being in business and one of the contributors to profit. There are two main methods of depreciation: • Straight line: the residual (scrap) value of the asset is deducted from its original cost, and the resultant figure is divided by the estimated life of the asset. The result of that is deducted annually over the life of the asset. So an asset that costs £10,000 and that has a residual value of £200 with a useable life of 4 years is depreciated by £2450 per year. • Reducing balance: the amount of annual depreciation is a constant proportion of the cost of the asset. Depreciation has no effect on cash flow. It is just an accounting procedure.

In legal practice, depreciation reserve usually describes either: (1) the accumulated depreciation recorded in a company’s accounts, reducing the carrying value of fixed assets; or (2) a contractually created reserve fund to finance the repair or replacement of wasting assets (for example, plant, machinery or building components).The term is not defined in company legislation; in accounting under UK/Irish GAAP (FRS 102) the balance is presented as accumulated depreciation, a contra‑asset. It represents a non‑cash charge that reduces reported profits and net assets relevant to the Companies Act 2006 (England & Wales and Northern Ireland) and the Companies Act 2014 (Ireland) distribution tests. It is not a distributable reserve and does not, of itself, create a pot of cash. For tax, depreciation is generally added back; relief is via capital allowances.In leases, PFI/PPP and facilities/asset management agreements, depreciation reserve often denotes a ring‑fenced cash fund for lifecycle or replacement costs. Its creation, permitted uses, control, interest, audit and handover on termination are drafting points. In residential and mixed‑use schemes, analogous “reserve” or “sinking” funds are subject to statutory controls and reasonableness requirements (including trust/segregation rules where applicable). Usage is broadly consistent across England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, though detailed regulation varies by sector and statute.

The rules dealing with depreciatory transactions and dividend stripping are anti-avoidance provisions. They target the artificial transfer of value out of a company by either: • a transfer of assets from one member of a group to another otherwise than for market value, or • the payment of dividends out of profits realised during periods falling before the shares in respect of which such dividends were paid were acquired and which reduce the value of the shares or securities of that company. Without the rules, value could be shifted from one asset to another in order to inflate allowable losses on the ultimate disposal of shares (or securities) in the company whose asset value has been stripped. Most depreciatory transactions take place between companies which are grouped for chargeable gains purposes because they are likely to require a control relationship to exist, and be exercised, to ensure that the non-arm's length transaction takes place. The rules are also extended to apply equally to certain (dividend stripping) distributions by a company to a corporate shareholder

The general effect of the depreciatory transactions legislation contained in ss.176 and 177 TCGA 1992 is to prevent artificial losses at the shareholder tier where value has been extracted at the asset tier, by restricting the allowable loss on a disposal of shares or securities.

A period of strongly negative economic growth and falling prices. Also sometimes known as recession.

STOP PRESS: In A Reference by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland of a devolution issue under paragraph 34 of Schedule 10 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 [2026] UKSC 16, the Supreme Court overruled its previous majority decision in P v Cheshire West and Chester Council; Surrey County Council v P [2014] UKSC 19. In its unanimous judgment, the Supreme Court rejected the 'acid test' for determining the objective element of whether a person is deprived of their liberty, holding that the assessment under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights requires a broader analysis, taking into account the whole range of factors in the particular case. This landmark decision has significant implications for local authorities and deprivation of liberty practice in the UK. We are reviewing this content accordingly. In the meantime, for more information, see: Supreme Court departs from Cheshire West