ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. Until 5 April 2013, ordinary residence was one of three key factors that needed to be considered when deciding whether, or to what extent, an individual was liable to tax in the UK. The other factors being residence and domicile. For tax years 2013/14 onwards, the concept of ordinary residence is abolished, subject to transitional provisions. For an explanation of the concept of ordinary residence, see the Ordinary residence before 6 April 2013 [Archived] Practice Note and for guidance on the tax implications of ordinary residence before 6 April 2013, see the Tax implications of ordinary residence before 6 April 2013 [Archived] Practice Note. In most cases, the abolition of ordinary residence came into effect on 6 April 2013. It applies for income tax, capital gains tax (CGT), inheritance tax (IHT) and corporation tax.. However, ordinary residence is retained in a small number of distinct areas of the legislation (see: Provisions which

EU Law analysis: Thanos Rammos, partner, Kira Raguse, senior associate, and Alexander Schmalenberger, knowledge lawyer, all of Taylor Wessing, consider the mandatory removal of the underused EU Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) platform from business websites by 20 July 2025, while outlining proposed reforms to Directive 2013/11/EU, the Alternative Dispute Resolution Directive (ADR Directive), designed to modernise out-of-court dispute resolution and further enhance consumer rights.

Until 5 April 2024, one of the key restrictions imposed on the accrual of members’ benefits under the pensions tax regime was the lifetime allowance, which capped the amount of benefits that could be saved and drawn by and in respect of an individual from their registered pension schemes without triggering tax charges. From 6 April 2024, this lifetime allowance was abolished, as announced in the Spring Budget 2023. The objective was to encourage older inactive individuals to return to work by removing a tax disincentive. This abolition was implemented through the Finance Act 2024 (FA 2024). This Practice Note explores how the lifetime allowance was abolished and how the pensions tax regime was amended by FA 2024. In preparation for this, the lifetime allowance charge was abolished (and other related changes were made) with effect from 6 April 2023, thereby resulting in the lifetime allowance regime losing its teeth with effect from that date. For further information, see Earlier abolition of the lifetime allowance charge and related changes on 6 April 2023, below. For

Law360: A billionaire with ties to Roman Abramovich lost his attempt on 27 February 2024 to overturn sanctions imposed on him following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, in the first substantive appeal to challenge the UK government's sanctions regime since the war began.

The Companies, Partnerships and Groups (Accounts and Reports) Regulations 2015 (SI 2015/980) which came into force on 6 April 2015 and apply to financial years beginning on or after 1 January 2016 (or earlier if the company so decides) permit small companies to prepare an abridged balance sheet and abridged loss-account'>profit and loss account if approved by all of the company's shareholders.

Trial in absence Trial in the absence of the defendant is considered a last resort in both the magistrates’ court and the Crown Court. In R v Jones, the Court of Appeal ruled that the defendant's Crown Court trial had not been unfair and, by his conduct, he had waived his right to be present and represented at his trial. In this case, the defendant was absent from the beginning of his trial. The court held that it has a discretion as to whether a trial should take place in the defendant’s absence and cautioned that such discretion must be used with the utmost care and with due regard to the interests of justice and the overriding principle of ensuring a fair trial. If the defendant is absent from their trial due to involuntary illness or incapacity, the court will rarely exercise this discretion in favour of commencing the trial unless the defendant has expressly requested the trial to begin in their absence and provided they are represented. However, where a defendant of full age and sound mind,

Leaving an address or area that a defendant has been bailed to without seeking the permission of the police or Judge, and failing to return within a reasonable time.

This Practice Note explains when the court can issue a warrant for arrest and the consequences of failing to surrender to court (absconding) or breaching conditions of court bail. It sets out the procedure for dealing with a defendant following their arrest for breach of bail conditions or failure to surrender, along with the duties imposed on a police custody officer and court officer when facilitating their production at court. The Practice Note: Securities, sureties and other conditions of court bail provides details of the types of bail conditions that can be imposed by the court. For information relating to police bail conditions and failing to surrender to police bail, see Practice Note: Breach of police bail. Bench warrants A defendant who is granted bail by the court must surrender to court at the date and time specified. The Bail Act 1976 (BA 1976) provides that if a defendant fails to appear at court to answer bail, the court may issue a warrant for their arrest. This is

DR analysis: In finding in favour of liquidators in respect of so-called misfeasance proceedings against the former director of the company in liquidation, the court bore in mind the dicta of Arden LJ in Re Mumtaz: that persons who have conducted the affairs of a company informally, cannot escape liability simply by saying that if the company’s books and papers had been available they would have shown the respondents not to be liable in the amount claimed by the liquidator, when it is the respondents who have, throughout, had custody of those books and papers. This was not the same thing as establishing some separate principle of policy in respect of claims against directors, but it could be borne in mind when resolving issues where the available documentary evidence before the judge was not what it should have been.

TMT analysis: The court held that the claimant, Fiona George was the subject of false allegations of fact made maliciously by her former boss, Lynn Cannell, to two third parties. However, despite this, her claims were dismissed because they were found not to be serious enough. In particular, the libel and slander claims failed on the basis that neither publication found to have been made had caused or were likely to cause serious harm to Ms George’s reputation within section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013 (DA 2013). The malicious falsehood claim failed on a similar basis; the court did not consider that Ms George had suffered the necessary special damage (or damage within section 3(1) of the Defamation Act 1952 (DA 1952)) to found the claim. The judgment includes a number of useful findings for practitioners to consider, including interesting commentary in relation to the scope of the ‘serious harm’ test in defamation claims, the evidence that formed the basis of a rare finding of malice made against a publishee and important clarification as to the harm required to found a claim in misuse of private information. Written by Nick Grant, senior associate at Payne Hicks Beach LLP.

Pensions analysis: In the determination of Dr N, CAS-93557-F1X2, the Pensions Ombudsman has rejected a complaint about an additional tax charge caused by the payment of a pension arrears lump sum. Dr N's 2014 incapacity pension application had been initially rejected, but after a successful 2021 appeal, his pension was backdated, resulting in additional tax charges. The Pensions Ombudsman found Dr N was not too incapacitated to appeal the 2014 decision and saw no grounds to extend the three-year limitation period. Martin Scott of gunnercooke LLP looks at the decision.

1 General Date of review: [Insert date of review] Name of reviewer: [Insert name of reviewer] 2 Audit Have the aims of your absence strategy been achieved? ☐ Yes☐ Some, but not all☐ No What further strategic aims should be included to ensure the absence strategy remains current and relevant to the needs of your business? [Insert details or comment regarding future strategic aims] Have the