The Legal Services Board (LSB) has initiated enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), over its handling of the collapse of Axiom Ince Ltd.

This Practice Note sets out specific considerations where an order made in family proceedings is enforced against a company or trust, commonly known as ‘piercing the corporate veil’, including in cases involving a foreign jurisdiction. It also considers when it may be appropriate to add a trustee, beneficiary or company director as a party to the proceedings. Enforcement against a company A company is a legal entity distinct from its owner and controller. The same principle applies to trust assets owned by a trustee on behalf of beneficiaries. See: Enforcement against a trust and Piercing the corporate veil. Where the court is able to enforce a financial order directly against company or trust assets, this is commonly known as ‘piercing the corporate veil’. Effectively, the barrier that exists between the party and the assets through the creation of a company or trust is put to one side by the court to enable enforcement of an order that could not otherwise be enforced due to a lack of assets held directly by that party. Such orders

This Practice Note provides guidance on criminal liability under the statutory product safety regime as it applies in Scotland. For detailed guidance regarding the criminal offences which may be committed under this regime and enforcement, see our E&W Practice Notes: • Consumer Protection Act 1987 offences • Enforcement of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 • General Product Safety Regulations 2005—Offences • Enforcement of the General Product Safety Regulations 2005 • Prosecution of product safety offences under the General Product Safety Regulations 2005 • Enforcement of consumer protection laws under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 Statutory product safety regime Product safety is a reserved area under the Scotland Act 1998 with very limited exceptions. There is a duty under Part II of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 (CPA 1987) to ensure that goods which are subject to safety regulations made by the Secretary of State are safe. These apply on a product-specific basis. Under the General Product Safety Regulations 2005, SI 2005/1803 (GPSR 2005), there is

Arbitration analysis: In Hulley Enterprises Ltd v the Russian Federation, the Commercial Court rejected the majority of the Russian Federation’s objections to the enforcement of the Yukos arbitral awards under section 103(3) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996), whilst declining the enforcement of particular costs-related aspects of the awards. The decision demonstrates that the Commercial Court utilises a restrictive approach to section 103(3), demonstrating the constrained environment where English public policy justifies refusal of enforcement. (2026)). This decision is of interest to arbitration practitioners who advise on enforcement proceedings involving sovereign states, evidential burdens in fraud allegations, collateral attacks on arbitral awards, and enforcement strategy. The judgment, in respect of which permission to appeal has been granted forms part of the long-running global enforcement proceedings relating to the ‘Yukos awards’. Written by Can Eken, assistant professor at Durham University with assistance from William Shone, law student at University College, Durham University.

This Practice Note, produced in conjunction with Phil Roberts of Clarke Willmott, provides a case study for consideration of the different means, in both a pre-action and post action context, of protecting a prospective/actual judgment creditor in terms of debt recovery—here a supplier of shoes. It covers the basic concepts of guarantees, retention of title clauses and enforcement processes such as charging orders, taking control of goods and third party debt orders with links through to related content on these subjects. The case study Please note: all the names in this case study are entirely fictional and any apparent similarity to any real people or businesses or companies is entirely coincidental and unintended. Pollyanna Pride has been supplying shoes to Mr Cobbler of Shoes It Is for almost three years. The shoes she makes are one-off soft leather designer boots. They usually sell well, even though the retail price is £295 a pair. Pollyanna is particularly proud of the fact that even though her shoes may be copied,

ARCHIVED: This archived Practice Note contains a guide to enforcement of court judgments in Guernsey. It includes a wide range of information, including dealing with conflicting decisions, costs, currency, enforcement process, limitation, injunctive relief, recognition of judgments, service and pitfalls and types of enforceable order. It is not maintained and is for background information only. The Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) (Guernsey) Law 1957—1957 Law Questions and answers 1. Treaties—is your country party to any bilateral or multilateral treaties for the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments? What is the country's approach to entering into these treaties and what, if any, amendments or reservations has your country made to such treaties? Guernsey has reciprocal arrangements with England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Isle of Man, Jersey, Italy, Netherlands, Netherlands Antillies, Surinam and Israel. Guernsey is not a signatory to the Brussels or Lugano Conventions. The States of Guernsey need to be satisfied that reciprocal treatment will be afforded in such jurisdictions to judgments of the Royal Court (and Court of Appeal) and the

This Practice Note contains a guide to enforcement in Jersey. It includes a wide range of information, including dealing with conflicting decisions, costs, currency, enforcement process, limitation, injunctive relief, recognition of judgments, service and pitfalls and types of enforceable order. Note that while the Practice Note references decisions of the Jersey courts, these are not reported by LexisNexis® and, consequently, no links to the judgments are provided. • Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) (Jersey) Law 1960—the 1960 Law • Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1973—the 1973 Act • Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Rules 1961 (the Rules) Questions and answers 1. Treaties—is your country party to any bilateral or multilateral treaties for the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments? What is the country's approach to entering into these treaties and what, if any, amendments or reservations has your country made to such treaties? Jersey, as a British Crown Dependency with its own government, legal system and laws, is not part of the UK or the EU, and is not a signatory to the Brussels or Lugano Conventions. Jersey does however

Arbitration analysis: Two Portuguese companies (MAGPOWER and MAGP) filed an appeal before the Portuguese Supreme Court against a decision issued by the Court of Appeal of Lisbon that recognised and declared enforceable an international arbitral award ordering the Portuguese companies to pay around a million euros to their sales agent in France (HELIOTROP). The Portuguese companies’ main claim was that the arbitral award was not yet final and unappealable as there was an ‘appeal’ pending before the French Cour de Cassation (Cour de Cassation), and the Court of Appeal of Lisbon should have therefore suspended the proceedings until a decision on that pending appeal had been issued. The Portuguese Supreme Court ultimately decided to dismiss the case on the grounds that the so-called appeal pending before the Cour de Cassation had been filed in the context of separate legal proceedings for annulment of the arbitral award, which did not prevent the arbitral award from becoming res judicata. Written by Nuno Ferreira Lousa, partner, and Rúben Gameiro, associate, at Linklaters.

This Practice Note considers enforcement in Scotland. For guidance on: • the position in England and Wales, see: Introduction to enforcement—overview which, as well as giving an overview of this topic, links through to more detailed guidance on various aspects of domestic enforcement in England and Wales • cross-border enforcement, see Practice Note: Cross-border enforcement—a guide for dispute resolution practitioners which, as well as giving an overview of this topic, links through to more detailed guidance on various aspects of cross-border enforcement Court proceedings—value and jurisdiction Commercial disputes with a value of over £100,000 can be heard in either the Court of Session or the sheriff court (section 39 of the Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 (CR(S)A 2014)). Subject to some exceptions, if a dispute has a value of up to £100,000, excluding interest and expenses, it can only be heard in a sheriff court (CR(S)A 2014, s 39). For guidance on the court structure for civil cases in Scotland, see Practice Note: Civil court structure in Scotland, which summarises

11pm (GMT) on 31 December 2020 marked the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period entered into following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. At that time (referred to in UK law as ‘IP completion day’), key transitional arrangements regulating this period came to an end and significant changes took effect across the UK’s legal regime. This has implications for practitioners considering issues of enforcement. For further guidance, see Practice Note: Family proceedings with EU connections—toolkit. See also Practice Note: Jurisdiction EU—Impact of Brexit. The reciprocal arrangements in this Practice Note deal with the position as to: • enforcement outside the EU • enforcement in EU Member States after 31 December 2020 where transitional provisions provided for by the Jurisdiction and Judgment (Family) (Amendment etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, SI 2019/519, reg 8(2) (as amended) do not apply See also Practice Note: Enforcement with EU Member States. In all cases, check the statute/convention (and any accompanying statutory instrument) carefully as some changes to the general scheme may apply to the arrangements with particular

This Practice Note considers some issues that may arise in the context of the enforcement of security by the appointment of a receiver over property that is subject to a trust. It also considers trust issues in the context of security granted by a partnership. Some banks have reported problems when using their standard form security documentation where their customer is a partnership, and the secured property is either occupied by the partnership or is a partnership asset. Often, potential issues for enforcement have not been considered when taking the security, and their standard form documentation has not been adapted to deal with this. Trusts of land The Land Register maintained by HM Land Registry records the ownership of the legal estate in the land, which is the ‘paper title’, or rights of the proprietors registered at HM Land Registry to sign a valid transfer document transferring ownership to another person. The Land Register does not record the beneficial (equitable) interest and, accordingly, the Land Registrar is not affected with notice of a trust.

Under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990), a breach of planning control is subject to enforcement action. A breach of planning control is defined in TCPA 1990, s 171A as: • carrying out development without the required planning permission—this inherently requires that unauthorised operations or a material change of use, both of which constitute ‘development’ within the meaning of TCPA 1990, s 55, have/has occurred, and that planning permission is required for that development and has not been obtained. In deciding whether a breach of planning control has occurred within this context, the guidance and case law concerned with the meaning of ‘development’ will need to be followed—see Practice Notes: Operational development and Material change of use • failing to comply with any condition or limitation subject to which planning permission has been granted—this includes any of the limitations or conditions applied to individual permitted development rights in the Town and County Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, SI 2015/596 the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, SI 1995/418. See: