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

As explained in Practice Note: SDLT chargeable consideration, overage payments will generally fall within the scope of contingent, uncertain or unascertained consideration. Where one party has previously bought a freehold property which is subject to overage and where the payment of stamp duty land tax (SDLT) has been deferred, then a further sale of that property may result in immediate final determination of the consideration payable on the first sale (eg, where the first sale provides for overage triggered on sale of the property and the second sale is for a fixed consideration). In such a case the seller

Corporate Crime analysis: Sanctions regimes are tools of foreign policy. In February 2022, a statutory instrument was made amending the sanctions regime which applies to Russian owned and controlled entities as part of the UK’s response to tensions in Eastern Europe. Partner, Sarah Klein, and Knowledge Development Lawyer, Gillian Bradbury, of BCLP LLP consider this development.

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (LTA 1987) provides to certain qualifying tenants of properties a right of first refusal. This means that if their landlord is seeking to dispose of their interest in the property (whether as freeholder or superior leaseholder) the landlord must offer the interest to those qualifying tenants first. A failure to do so is not only a criminal offence but can involve the unwinding of a transaction done in breach of its provisions, which

Part I of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (LTA 1987) applies to premises which consist of the whole or part of a building, which is to be assumed is the case here, which contain two or more flats held by qualifying tenants and the number of flats held by qualifying tenants exceeds 50% of the total number of flats in the premises. In this case, the building comprises two flats both of which are held or will be held on long leases and so will be held by qualifying tenants. As a result, when the second long

Under section 55(2)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990), planning permission is not required for the carrying out for the maintenance, improvement or other alteration of any building of works which affect only the interior of the building, or do not materially affect the external appearance of the building. This include mezzanine floors, subject to exceptions for retail premises. TCPA 1990, s 55(2)(f) states that a change in the use of land or buildings, where the previous and new use falls within the same use class,

Lease or licence? In Street v Mountford the House of Lords identified the hallmarks of a tenancy as: • exclusive possession • of defined premises Payment of rent might also be an indication of a tenancy but is not essential. Determining whether the agreement proposed will be a lease or a licence will depend upon the substance of the agreement as a whole, rather than the form, ie if the parties in fact have reached an agreement which amounts to exclusive possession, this cannot be offset by simply labelling an agreement in a certain way. Even if properly drafted at the outset as a true licence, it appears