Cohabitants and other co-owners or co-occupiers of property often fail to specify the extent of their respective beneficial interests in the shared home. This can create significant uncertainty if, eg the relationship subsequently breaks down or a trustee in bankruptcy or creditor of one of the parties tries to realise that person’s purported share in the property. Common situations in which the parties’ beneficial interests may not be sufficiently expressed arise where: • the property is held in joint names, but there is no express declaration of trust as regards the beneficial interests • the property is held in the name of only one party (again assuming that there is no declaration of trust declaring that the property is held in trust for that party and the cohabitant/co-occupier and declaring their respective shares) This Practice Note deals with the latter situation. For situations where the property is held in joint names, see Practice Note: Establishing a beneficial interest (joint ownership). Where property is held in the name of one party only, that person

This Practice Note provides practical guidance on how a causal link between dumped imports and the material injury is established. The guidance is based on the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on the Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (Anti-dumping Agreement). Introduction The WTO’s Anti-dumping Agreement allows Member States to take unilateral action and impose anti-dumping duties against certain imported products. However, such unilateral action from Member States is not unfettered and the Anti-dumping Agreement requires that anti-dumping duties can only be imposed if: • the Member State has conducted a thorough investigation. For guidance on the investigation process, see Practice Note: Stages in an anti-dumping investigation • the investigation has determined that the imported product and the domestically produced/manufactured product are like products. For guidance on like products, see Practice Note: Like product in trade remedy investigations • the investigation determined that the imported goods are dumped. For guidance on determining the normal value, see Practice Note: How to determine the normal value. For guidance on

For more general information on company share option plans (CSOPs), see Practice Note: How CSOPs work and key features. Step Details of step Resources required to implement step Timing of step 1 Determine whether the company qualifies to operate a CSOP The CSOP regime is prescriptive and sets out numerous requirements that must be met at the time the options are granted, including in relation to the company granting the options. It is essential to establish whether the company whose shares are being granted under option qualifies to operate a CSOP first. The proposed option holder(s) must also meet certain requirements in order to be granted a CSOP option. For further detailed information on the CSOP eligibility requirements relating to the company, see Practice Note: CSOPs—qualifying companies and qualifying shares. For further detailed information on the CSOP eligibility requirements relating to the employee, see Practice Note: Who can be granted a CSOP option? For a flowchart determining whether a company qualifies for CSOP purposes, see: CSOP—flowchart

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: This article discusses a recent High Court decision which reviewed and applied the requirements for the creation of a constructive trust over funds which would otherwise form part of an insolvent estate. Against a backdrop of impending litigation between them concerning alleged breaches of contract, the joint administrators of a company and MUFG Bank Ltd disputed the proper status of approximately £125,000 held by Lloyds Bank in an invoice factoring facility account held in the company’s name. Deputy ICCJ Frith’s decision is a helpful summary of the relevant principles in determining whether a trust exists, and how it interacts with the relevant insolvency scheme. Written by Ali Tabari, barrister, at St Philips Chambers.

Personal Injury analysis: Winston Hunter QC, head of Byrom Street Chambers, advises that the decision in Bosworth Water Trust v SSR and others is a reminder that there is always a duty of care, and the real issue will relate to the content of that duty and whether, on the facts, it has been discharged.

For more general information on save as you earn (SAYE) schemes, see Practice Note: How SAYE schemes work and key features. Step Details of step Resources required to implement step Timing of step 1 Determine whether the company qualifies to operate an SAYE scheme The SAYE regime is prescriptive and sets out numerous requirements that must be met at the time the options are granted, including in relation to the company granting the options. It is essential to establish whether the company whose shares are being granted under option qualifies to operate an SAYE scheme first. The proposed option holders must also meet certain requirements in order to be granted SAYE options. For further detailed information on the SAYE eligibility requirements relating to the company, see Practice Note: SAYE—companies which qualify to operate an SAYE scheme. For further detailed information on the SAYE eligibility requirements relating to the employee, see Practice Note: SAYE—eligibility to participate in an SAYE scheme. For flowcharts respectively determining whether a company qualifies

For more general information on share incentive plans (SIPs), see Practice Note: What is a share incentive plan? Step Details of step Resources required to implement step Timing of step 1 Determine whether the company qualifies to operate a SIP. The SIP regime is prescriptive and sets out numerous requirements that must be met at the time the awards are granted, including in relation to the company granting the awards. It is essential to establish whether the company whose shares are being granted under the awards qualifies to operate a SIP first. The proposed award holder(s) must also meet certain requirements in order to be granted SIP awards. For further detailed information on the SIP eligibility requirements relating to the company, see Practice Note: SIPs—qualifying companies and type of shares. For further detailed information on the SIP eligibility requirements relating to the employee, see Practice Note: SIPs—who can be granted an award? For a checklist of the main issues to be considered before implementing a SIP, see: SIP—checklist. As

This is one of four Practice Notes on adverse possession. The others are: • Claiming title by adverse possession under the Limitation Act 1980 or the Land Registration Act 1925 • Claiming title by adverse possession under the Land Registration Act 2002 • Adverse possession and leases Introduction Adverse possession of land is possession of land in circumstances which are inconsistent with the title of the true owner. The person in adverse possession (referred to in this Practice Note as ‘the squatter’) must prove factual possession (see Factual possession below) accompanied by an intention to possess (see Intention to possess below). The squatter’s adverse possession must be uninterrupted for the required period (see Required period of adverse possession below). Although the elements of factual possession and intention to possess are distinct, evidence in support of them may be found in a single act. For example, erecting a fence which excludes everyone but the squatter (see Uses of land which may amount to adverse possession below) may be relied on as proof of both factual

This all-encompassing resource pack contains a step-by-step guide to establishing a new enterprise management incentives (EMI) share option scheme and granting EMI options pursuant to it. This resource pack is to be used where a generic set of EMI rules is to be established in respect of the EMI scheme (rather than individual standalone share option agreements). For more general information on EMI schemes, see Practice Note: How EMI schemes work and key features. See also Practice Note: How to establish an EMI scheme and grant first EMI options under it. Step Details of step Resources required to implement step Timing of step 1 Determine whether the company qualifies to operate an EMI scheme The EMI regime is prescriptive and sets out numerous requirements that must be met at the time the options are granted, including in relation to the company granting the options. It is essential to establish whether the company whose shares are being granted under share option qualifies to operate an EMI scheme

This Practice Note considers when and how a right of light can be established, whether through grant or prescription (a prescriptive right of light is most commonly established under the Prescription Act 1832), and considers when a right of light might be abandoned, extinguished, or lost through alteration or demolition of a building, and how a right of light may be extinguished under section 203 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 (HPA 2016). Does a right to light exist? An owner of land has no natural right to light at common law. Accordingly, it must be established that the right has been obtained by grant or prescription. Grant A right to light may be granted in the following ways: • express grant: the express grant of a legal easement can be achieved by deed (including a lease). For information on the registration requirements, see Checklist: Checklist for the creation and registration of easements • implied grant: where a document does not expressly grant a right, but uses terms consistent with the existence of an easement,

Deputies appointed in respect of a protected party’s (P’s) property and affairs are frequently involved in the establishment of a care regime. Although a property and affairs deputy does not have either the authority or, necessarily, the expertise to make decisions on P’s behalf in respect of their care and welfare, they are still involved directly in matters relating to P’s care. Depending on the nature and severity of P’s disabilities, a deputy can be involved in the coordination and funding of a variety of different care packages. These can range from a 24/7 professional nursing care package with a large team of carers to the involvement of a single support worker who supports P in certain tasks for a couple of hours a week. The terms ‘carer’ and ‘support worker’ are used throughout these notes. However, regardless of whether the services of a carer or a support worker are commissioned by the deputy, the same matters will need to be considered and thereafter addressed. The professional

This Practice Note has been written by Anne Redston, Barrister. It is her personal view; she is not authorised to speak for the Tribunals Service or the judiciary. This Practice Note explains how to work out whether a person is employed or self-employed. It considers the National Insurance contributions (NICs) deeming rules, the contractual relationship between the parties, HMRC status determinations, together with how these can be challenged, and HMRC’s Check Employment Status for Tax (CEST) tool. This Practice Note should be read with Practice Note: Employment status tests—from a tax and NICs perspective. The reasons why status is important is explained in Practice Note: Employment status—why it matters. Remember that this Practice Note, and the other Practice Notes on employment status, are only a summary of the applicable law and do not cover all situations. HMRC may also take a different approach to workers in the entertainment industry, including film, theatre, TV and radio and musicians, and that approach is not covered in this Practice Note. In addition, further changes are