In this Q&A, we have made a presumption against double portions, so that where the presumption applies, the doctrine of ademption applies on the distribution of the estate so the inter-vivos gift is treated

The ‘unity of seisin’ rule dictates that easements and profits cannot exist where the dominant and servient land are in common ownership and occupation. Therefore, if the land was in the common ownership and occupation of A, the easements and profits would be extinguished and all acts carried out on the land are referable to A’s ownership of the land and not to the former right that he had as an easement. Therefore, it follows that if A (or A and C) transfer(s) the beneficial ownership of the residential parcel of land to

An easement is extinguished when the freehold of both the dominant and servient lands come into the ownership and possession of the same person, in the same capacity. This is known as unity of ownership (or, historically, unity of seisin). Where the owners of both tenements die and the legal estates of both of their properties become vested in the same personal

A lasting power of attorney for property and affairs (‘Property and Affairs LPA’) does not itself give the donee authority to conduct litigation on the donor's behalf. See: Restrictions on the scope of the attorney's authority: Cretney and Lush on Lasting and Enduring Powers of Attorney [13.24] and Gregory v Turner, R (on the application of Morris) v North Somerset Council. A Property and Affairs LPA may expressly limit the donee's role to specific issues or it may not contain any limitations (meaning that the donee has authority to do almost anything which the donor could have done for themselves in relation to their financial affairs, subject to some limits). For guidance on the attorney’s duties and powers, see Practice Note: LPAs—the attorney's duties and powers. Once registered with the Office of the Public

England Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (NERCA 2006) requires public authorities to have regard to the purpose of conserving biodiversity in the exercise of their functions, insofar as such regard is consistent with the carrying out of said functions. NERCA 2006, s 40(3) says that conserving biodiversity includes restoring or enhancing a population or habitat. There is no limitation in the wording of NERCA 2006, s 40 about what types of habitat are covered by the duty. The phrase ‘public authority’ is construed widely, with NERCA 2006, s 40(4) stating that it includes: • a Minister of the Crown • a public body, including a government department, a local authority and a local planning authority • a person holding a public

In Salford Estates (R on the application of) v Salford City Council & anr his Honour Judge Waksman QC at para 95 explained: '…section 123 imposes a duty to achieve a particular outcome, namely the best price reasonably obtainable; it is not a duty to conduct a particular process, for example to have regard to particular factors. Secondly - … as the duty rests upon the local authority, its purported discharge of that duty can only be impugned by this court on the usual public law grounds; that can be seen from the case

The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULR(C)A 1992) sets out a significant obligation upon employers to carry out notification and consultation requirements in respect of proposed redundancies. TULR(C)A 1992, s 193 requires that the employer inform the Secretary of State for what is now Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) of proposed redundancies where the notification and consultation requirements apply. This is done by form HR1—Advance notification of redundancies. Where an employer is proposing to dismiss at least 20 employees at an establishment within a period of 90 days or less by reason

As part of a fair redundancy consultation procedure, an employer should take reasonable steps to find alternative employment for those employees within the organisation (or within the group, if it is part of a group) who are selected for redundancy, and should consult with them about it. The precise scope of the duty on the employer to find alternative employment is unclear, but it is clear that all reasonable steps should

The early conciliation (EC) requirement (also known as mandatory Acas early conciliation) is an obligation on a prospective claimant to contact Acas with certain information prior to submitting a claim in the employment tribunal.

Where an employee raises a grievance about another employee, there is no specific legal requirement that the employer must provide the second employee with copies of statements made by the employee bringing the grievance (or by other employees) in connection with the grievance. However, the employer will need to consider the Acas Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures, which applies: • to any disciplinary action taken by an employer, and • to a written grievance brought by an employee For further information, see Practice Note: Acas disciplinary and grievance code—application. An employment tribunal is entitled to take the Code of Practice into account when determining relevant claims. Further, in proceedings to which the Code applies, any unreasonable failure to follow it could affect compensation awarded as follows: • where

With effect from 6 April 2020, section 1 of the National Insurance Contributions (Termination Awards and Sporting Testimonials) Act 2019 (NIC(TAST)A 2019) amends section 10 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 to impose an employer Class 1A National Insurance contributions (NICs) liability to the extent a termination payment exceeds the £30,000 tax exemption threshold, meaning the employer's NICs position on termination payments will mirror that of income tax. For example,

The identification, and separate treatment, of non-matrimonial property has its genesis in White v White, but received its full exposition and rationalisation in Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane. In White Lord Nicholls said this (at 610): ‘[Pre-marital property] represents a contribution made to the welfare of the family by one of the parties to the marriage. The judge should take it into account. He should decide how important it is in the particular case. The nature and value of the property, and the time when and circumstances in which the property was acquired, are among the relevant matters to be considered. However, in the ordinary course, this factor can be expected to carry little weight, if any, in a case where the claimant’s financial needs cannot be met without recourse to this property.’ However, a non-matrimonial asset can take on a matrimonial character, for instance: • by the capital being used to support