Under section 108 of the Finance Act 2003 (FA 2003) transactions are linked if they form part of a single scheme, arrangement or series of transactions between the same vendor and purchaser, or in either case, persons connected with them (connected for these purposes is as set out in section 1122 of the Corporation Tax Act 2010 (CTA 2010)). A company is connected with another

If a donor makes a settlement and is one of the members of the discretionary class of beneficiaries, this is a gift with reservation (GWR). If property subject to a reservation, (or property representing it which is treated as the property comprised in the gift), remains subject to a reservation until the donor's death, that property is treated by the GWR provisions as property to which the donor was beneficially entitled immediately before his death. The value of that property

Section 5 of the Administration of Estates Act 1925 provides for the cesser of right of executor to prove that: ‘Where a person appointed executor by a will— (i) survives the testator but dies without having taken out probate of the will; or (ii) is cited to take out probate of the will and does not appear to the citation; or (iii) renounces probate of the will; his rights in respect of the executorship shall wholly cease, and the representation to the testator and the administration

The issue here is between ‘a claim for personal injuries’, and ‘a claim in negligence or in battery’, which is itself a confusion between a form of damage (and its remedies) on the one hand, and a cause of action on the other. ‘Personal injury’ is not a tort—it is a sort of damage resulting from a tort, which gives rise to a legal right to a remedy. It is to be contrasted with other physical damage—or example, to property, and other forms of tortious interference with a person’s rights (for example, the damage to one’s reputation that results from the tort of defamation). If A attacks B, and B is physically

It would be prudent for the holding company and the subsidiary to enter into some form of short term lease to cover the period before assignment. It may be possible to use a section 43(3) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954) agreement, but the preferable option would be a lease with

In this Q&A, the second statutory demand was served on the debtor after the presentation of the bankruptcy petition. Section 267(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) provides that ‘…a creditor’s petition may be presented to the court in respect of a debt or debts only if, at the time the petition is presented—’. There then follows a list of criteria that must be satisfied, and throughout that list is reference to ‘the debt’. Accordingly, it appears that a petition must be based

STOP PRESS: From 6 April 2017, the Insolvency Rules 1986, SI 1986/1925 were revoked and replaced by the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (IR 2016), SI 2016/1024. The content in this Q&A may have been affected by this change. Service out of the jurisdiction Under rule 6.14(6) of the Insolvency Rules 1986, SI 1986/1925 (IR 1986), a bankruptcy petition may be served outside of England and Wales. However, this can only happen with the court’s permission, and the court can direct how service is to be effected. In the case of bankruptcy petitions, IR 1986, r 12A.20 provides that Civil Procedure Rules 6 (CPR) shall apply to the service of court documents outside the jurisdiction with such modifications as the court may direct. Section IV of CPR 6 (CPR 6.30–6.47) is entitled ‘Service

Arbitration analysis: A successful appeal by the party calling on a performance bond to stay court injunctive proceedings in favour of upholding the parties’ agreement to arbitrate—this is notwithstanding that the performance bond contained a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the Singapore courts. Amongst other reasons, the Singapore High Court held that was no ‘sufficient reason’ why the matter should not be referred to arbitration, and the need to give effect to the parties’ agreement to arbitrate outweighed the inconveniences and impracticalities created by granting a stay of court proceedings. Written by Benny Santoso, senior associate at Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP.

It is not clear whether the beneficiary’s entitlement covers the value of the investment portfolio or if the investment portfolio exceeds the entitlement. In either case, the executors should consider the current value of the investment portfolio. If the current value is within the beneficiary’s entitlement, they are able to appropriate the portfolio to the beneficiary as part of their share of the estate. The value of appropriation is the current value but, from a capital gains tax (CGT) perspective, the beneficiary’s base value will be the date of death value. The executors

Arbitration analysis: In a judgment dated 12 April 2023, the Australian High Court has dismissed the appeal lodged by the Kingdom of Spain (‘Spain’) and upheld the recognition and enforcement of the €101m ICSID award favourable to renewable energy investor Infrastructure Services Luxembourg S.À.R.L. (‘Respondent’). The court considered that Spain had effectively waived its regime of sovereign immunity from the Australian jurisdiction under Part II of the Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 (‘FSIA’). However, immunity from jurisdiction to execute the award, a crucial and distinct concept from ‘recognition’ and ‘enforcement’ included in Part IV of the FSIA, remains intact for Spain, representing a significant setback against the Respondent. By interpreting the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (‘ICSID Convention’), the High Court of Australia concluded that ‘recognition’ refers to a binding requirement to recognise an award before the domestic courts, while ‘enforcement’ relates to the financial obligations imposed by the arbitral award to be enforced as if it was a final judgment issued by a domestic court. These two concepts sensibly differs from ‘execution’, which refers to how a judgment enforcing an international arbitral award is given effect, commonly through specific measures against the executed party’s assets within the court’s domestic jurisdiction. However, although Spain had effectively waived its immunity against ‘enforcement’ and ‘recognition’, immunity from ‘execution’ still protects Spain from the practical executive actions against its assets in the Australian jurisdiction. Therefore, although the judgment of the High Court rejected the Spanish appeal confirming the lower courts decisions, it only concerned the recognition and enforcement of the ICSID award, not its execution, to the despair of the Respondent, who will no doubt not be so interested in terminological discussions but in the actual award payment. Written by Josep Galvez, English barrister, Del Canto Chambers (London) and Spanish abogado, Litigo Partners (Barcelona).

Energy analysis: The Clean Industry Bonus is connected to the Contracts for Difference (CfD) regime and prescribes minimum requirements for offshore wind developers wishing to bid into the CfD for Allocation Rounds (AR) 7-9, as well as offering additional revenue support through the CfD AR process, in relation to their supply chain investments. The Lexis+ Energy team explores the key features of the Clean Industry Bonus for CfD Allocation Round 7 (AR7) and considers what the Clean Industry Bonus might mean for industry.

This Q&A relates to a charge debt, and not to a charging order. Section 20 of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980) does not apply to charging orders. On that assumption, typically, claims for a mortgage or charge debt are governed by LA 1980, s 20 (and not LA 1980, ss 5 and 8). LA 1980, s 20 provides that no claim shall be brought to recover: ‘…(a) any principal sum of money secured