ARCHIVED: This archived Practice Note is not being maintained. Repeal of foreign travel orders and transitional provisions Foreign travel orders have now been replaced by (a) sexual harm prevention orders and (b) sexual risk orders (both of which make provision for prohibitions on foreign travel). For further information see Practice Notes: Sexual harm prevention orders and Sexual risk orders. The above is as a result of section 114 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (SOA 2003) having been repealed by the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (ABCPA 2014). Practitioners should however note the effect of the saving and transitional provisions: the repeal or amendment of the SOA 2003, ss 104–129 (by the 2014 Act) does not apply in relation to: • an application for a foreign travel order made before 8 March 2015 • an existing order (whether made before or after 8 March 2015) which had been applied for before 8 March 2015, or • anything done in connection with such an application or order From 8 March 2015 when section

Requirement to provide a translation Where a witness statement is filed in a foreign language, CPR PD 32, para 23.2 provides that the party must file: • the witness statement in the foreign language, and • an affidavit by a translator which verifies the translation

In order to recover damages, the claimant must prove that the injury or damage was reasonably foreseeable. If the damage was not reasonably foreseeable, the defendant will not be held responsible and the damage is said to be too remote.

The Insolvency Service has announced that two foreign exchange agents have been banned for a total of 24 years after securing more than £9m from clients only to use the funds to pay back previous clients. Peter John Roebuck (65), from Berkhamsted, Buckinghamshire, and Preston-based Francis Edward Tarling (75) both received 12-year disqualifications and their bans are effective from 1 October 2020.

Foreign exchange risk is the risk that the exchange rate will change unfavourably before the currency used for payables/receivables is exchanged.

Forfeiture is the lost right to possession.

To forfeit is to lose the right to possess, ie take a step to enforce a breach of a lease.

Forfeiture by wrongdoing describes the rule that a party who deliberately causes, procures or exploits a witness’s absence cannot then rely on that absence to exclude the witness’s evidence. In criminal proceedings, it most often arises where a defendant intimidates, threatens, harms, or otherwise interferes with a witness so they do not attend court, thereby “forfeiting” their right to object to hearsay or to insist on confrontation.In England and Wales and Northern Ireland, the principle is reflected in statutory hearsay regimes (for example, Criminal Justice Act 2003, s.116(5), and equivalent provisions) and developed through case law, allowing admission of hearsay statements where the defendant’s own wrongdoing caused the witness’s non‑attendance.In Scotland and Ireland, the doctrine is principally case‑law based but follows the same core idea: a party should not benefit from their own misconduct in undermining the trial process.Practically, forfeiture by wrongdoing is relied upon by prosecutors to justify admitting out‑of‑court statements, and by courts when balancing fair trial rights against the integrity of the justice system and the protection of witnesses.

Property Disputes analysis: In Zash Properties Ltd v Mayworth Ltd, His Honour Judge (HHJ) Johns QC found that a 999 year lease of a shop had been validly forfeited for change of use to two studio flats. The change of use was in breach of a covenant not to change user without the landlord’s consent (such consent not to be unreasonably withheld). The main issues were (i) whether the conversion to residential meant that section 168 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (CLRA 2002) applied, so as to invalidate any notice served pursuant to section 146 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA 1925) without first obtaining an admission or determination of breach, and (ii) whether a condition of relief should be the reinstatement to commercial use, because of the extra statutory rights that apply to residential long leases. The judge found in favour of the landlord on both points, holding that the lease had been validly forfeited and granting relief on condition that the premises were reinstated to commercial use. Written by David Peachey, barrister, at Hardwicke.

When can a landlord exercise the right to forfeit a lease? Forfeiture is a landlord’s right to bring a lease to an end as a result of a tenant’s breach. A landlord may only end the tenancy agreement by forfeiture if there: • is an express right in the lease, ie the tenancy agreement contains a forfeiture clause which allows the landlord to forfeit in respect of the tenant's alleged breach. For example, the lease may provide that the landlord is entitled to forfeit the lease for failure to pay rent within 14 or 21 days of the due date, or on the occurrence of a specific event detailed in the lease (for example any type of insolvency specified as an event giving rise to the right to forfeiture), or for any other breach of tenant covenant. By way of example, see our Precedent: Lease of whole building, or • has been a breach by the tenant of an express or implied condition, ie a term of the lease which is so fundamental to that lease that a breach

Seized cash can be forfeited in two ways under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002): • court-ordered forfeiture under POCA 2002, s 298 (forfeiture by court order), and • administrative forfeiture under POCA 2002, s 297A (forfeiture without court order) For information on forfeiture without court order under POCA 2002, s 297A, see Practice Note: Forfeiture of cash without court order. This Practice Note explains the process for obtaining the forfeiture of cash under POCA 2002, s 298. For detailed guidance on cash searches, seizure and detention provisions which support this power, consult the following Practice Notes: • Cash searches under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and • Cash seizure and detention There are separate statutory regimes governing the forfeiture of money in bank accounts and also of personal property, see Practice Notes: Seizure and forfeiture of monies held in bank accounts under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and Recovery of listed assets under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 respectively. Cryptoassets can also be the subject of forfeiture

This Practice Note explains the process for obtaining the forfeiture of cash under the sections 297A, 297B, 297C, 297D, 297E, 297F and 297G of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002). This Practice Note also explains the process for securing the forfeiture of cash without an order from the magistrates’ court, under POCA 2002, s 297A. For detailed guidance on cash searches, seizure and detention provisions which support this power, consult the following: • Cash searches under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 • Cash seizure and detention Seized cash can be forfeited in two ways under POCA 2002: • administrative forfeiture under POCA 2002, s 297A (forfeiture without court order), and • court-ordered forfeiture under POCA 2002, s 298 (forfeiture by court order) For information on forfeiture by court order under POCA 2002, s 298, see Practice Note: Forfeiture of cash by court order. Note, there are separate statutory regimes governing the forfeiture of money in bank accounts and also of personal property, see Practice Notes: Seizure and forfeiture