As the notices were served by the previous freeholder prior to completion (and accordingly there are no registration gap issues—see Practice Note: The ‘registration gap’) there is no reason why the new freeholder should not be entitled to rely on the notices served. For the purpose of this Q&A we assume that they were valid section 21(4)(a) notices. We also assume that there is no issue as to the status of the residential tenants’ current occupation, ie no rent has been accepted or other indication given to the tenants that their tenancy

Helplines run on a not for profit basis providing access to advice, information, listening support, befriending, counselling and/or referral in the fields of health and social welfare where calls are free of charge to the caller.

Telephone services offered by network operators and service providers for which there is generally no charge to the caller.

This Practice Note is about the tax rules applying to freeports in England. The UK government has been collaborating with the devolved administrations on the processes for creating new freeports in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Scottish and UK governments jointly selected two Scottish green freeports: Firth of Forth Green Freeport and Inverness and Cromarty Firth Green Freeport. Special tax sites have been designated at the Inverness and Cromarty Firth Green Freeport with effect from 8 April 2024 and at the Forth Green Freeport with effect from 12 June 2024. The Welsh and UK governments jointly agreed to create two freeports in Wales: Anglesey Freeport and Celtic Freeport. Special tax sites have been designated at the Celtic Freeport with effect from 26 November 2024 and at the Anglesey Freeport with effect from 23 January 2025. On 26 March 2024, the previous Conservative government published high-level plans for an enhanced investment zone in Northern Ireland intended to bring together the overall funding envelopes and objectives of freeports and investment zones in a bespoke offer for Northern Ireland.

This Practice Note gives practical guidance on the WTO’s legal framework that is relevant to freeports. It provides guidance on the relevant considerations under the Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Agreement, the Agreement on Trade-related Investment Measures, the Agreement on Trade Facilitation and the General Agreement on Trade in Services. Introduction Freeports, special economic zones, free zones, free economic zones are all terms used to describe the same arrangement within a specific country. Although there is no agreed definition, these arrangements all provide some relief from customs duties, certain taxes (such as import VAT) as well as a reduction in regulatory and bureaucratic compliance. In other words, it is specifically designated areas where different economic regulations apply than in the rest of the country where the arrangement is located. In the UK, these arrangements are referred to as freeports and this term is used in this Practice Note. Freeports and the WTO The World Trade Organization (WTO) does directly regulate freeports through a treaty. However, this does not imply that Member States are free

Additional voluntary contributions made by a member of an occupational pension scheme to another totally separate scheme.

Software, which is free to users and is available from many locations on the Internet.

A freezing injunction is an interim order by the court restraining a party from removing assets in a jurisdiction or restraining a party from dealing with any located within or outside the jurisdiction.

Dispute resolution analysis: The King’s Bench Division extended a freezing injunction to cover the defendant's worldwide assets, excluding those in Greece, pursuant to section 25 of Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982. The decision demonstrates that freezing orders can be tailored beyond a simple domestic/worldwide binary, considering principles of comity and ongoing foreign proceedings. It also illustrates the court's approach to evaluating asset disclosure and a defendant’s previous conduct, including a lack of transparency and misleading evidence, demonstrating a real risk of unjustified dissipation of the respondent’s assets located outside England and Wales. Practical implications written by Phillip Patterson of Gatehouse Chambers.

Dispute Resolution analysis: How did the court in JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank determine whether a freezing injunction order was wide enough to capture and require the defendant to disclose the existence of his interests in certain discretionary trusts? Edward Carder, solicitor in the dispute resolution department at Mishcon de Reya, comments on the case and its significance.

This Practice Note provides guidance on the interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the CPR. Depending on the court in which your matter is proceeding, you may also need to be mindful of additional provisions—see further below. What is the ‘Chabra jurisdiction’? This Practice Note discusses freezing injunctions against third parties, as opposed to defendants in proceedings, pursuant to the Chabra jurisdiction. The name is derived from Mummery J’s decision in TSB International v Chabra. In that case, a freezing order was granted against a third-party company where there was a good arguable case that the assets apparently vested in the name of the company were in fact beneficially the property of Mr Chabra, and therefore those assets, or at least some of them, might be available to satisfy the claimant's claims against Mr Chabra should the claimant be successful at trial. As a result, the courts’ jurisdiction to grant a freezing injunction against a party whom the claimant asserts no cause of action (a non-cause of action defendant or

ARCHIVED: This Checklist has been archived and is not maintained. This Checklist is designed to draw attention to the potential impact of Brexit on freezing injunctions and is a starting point to consider key points when applying for or enforcing a freezing order. Cases in which a freezing injunction might be appropriate often involve a cross border element—for example, the defendant being based or having assets located outside of England and Wales or the underlying claim involving allegations of wrongful conduct that concerns a number of different jurisdictions. The UK’s departure from the EU, when dealing with freezing injunctions, has the potential to impact the following: • establishing the jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales • service of documents outside England and Wales • enforcing freezing orders outside England and Wales • obtaining freezing injunctions in support of foreign proceedings The following should be noted: • the rules governing jurisdiction, service and enforcement are technical and complex. Links to detailed guidance are provided within the Checklist to enable detailed consideration • relevant