A cell that functions in sexual reproduction by merging with another (distinct type of) gamete.

In this Act “gaming machine” means a machine which is designed or adapted for use by individuals to gamble (whether or not it can also be used for other purposes)

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note considers what constitutes as a gaming machine for the purposes of the Gaming Act 2005 (GA 2005) and what offences may be committed when breaches occur. It also discusses the operation of lotteries including the distinction between simple and complex lotteries, rules on promoting lotteries, exempt lotteries and offences arising from breach of the provisions. The Gambling Act 2005 (GA 2005) defines a gaming machine as ‘a machine which is designed or adapted for use by individuals to gamble (whether or not it can also be used for other purposes)’. The High Court has decided that poker machines available for use in public houses are gaming machines designed for use to play a game of chance for a prize. They were ‘recognisably capable of being used to generate a chance upon which a prize might be awarded’. Machines which are not designed or adapted for use by individuals

Very high-energy electro-magnetic rays produced during radioactive decay. These are similar to visible light and X-rays but significantly more energetic than the latter.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has reported that Danyal Aziz, Michael Earp and Nicole Rhone have been convicted at Birmingham Crown Court for their involvement in gang activity. Aziz, the gang leader, was convicted of conspiracy to supply cocaine, conspiracy to supply heroin, two counts of possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life, two counts of possession of a prohibited firearm, two counts of possession of prohibited ammunition and money laundering. Earp was convicted of drugs and firearms offences and Rhone was convicted of possession of a firearm and prohibited ammunition. The three gang members were arrested by the National Crime Agency (NCA) in 2020, following an investigation that relied heavily on the gang’s use of EncroChat encrypted communications. The service allowed the NCA to read some of the messages that had been sent or received by Aziz and Earp, which confirmed that they had acquired firearms. CPS Specialist Prosecutor, Giorgina Venturella, has provided that 'The encrypted phone evidence was key in this case, showing Aziz directing operations from his handle ‘LushMace’, and meant the NCA were able to piece together a detailed picture of the gang’s movements.'

HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has reported that a gang of 27 people engaged in a £5m tax fraud in Northern Ireland have been sentenced, following a decade long investigation. The leaders of the gang, Francis Devlin and Paul McStravick have been sentenced to four years each in prison, for two counts of conspiracy to cheat the public revenue and two counts of conspiracy to convert criminal property. The other 25 members of the gang have been given suspended prison sentences. HMRC have described their investigation as its biggest ever, and obtained more than 260 hours of secretly recorded footage of gang members plotting the fraud at Devlin’s accountancy office and utilised more than 400 HMRC officers to search over 34 business and residential premises. The gang was found to have created 16 bogus companies and used 56 associated bank accounts to commit £5m of tax fraud over a period of 18 months.

Under the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 (G(L)A 2004), s 4, a person acts as a gangmaster if he supplies a worker to do work to which G(L)A 2004 applies for another person.

It may be the case, particularly where a long lease is granted, or a let is of commercial premises, that the tenant may erect buildings, such as garages, without the knowledge or consent of the landlord. This is likely to amount to a breach of the lease, though as the previous tenants cannot be located there is little that the landlord can do as a result of such breach. The real issue is the ownership of the structures, especially if the landlord wishes to re-let the land, or if it wishes to demolish or otherwise remove the structures. The position at common law is that improvements carried out to land and which form part of that land become the property of the reversioner at the expiration of the interest. In Elitestone Ltd v Morris, the House of Lords considered the question of whether a bungalow formed part of the realty or

Private Client analysis: In Nunn, the taxpayer sold land which previously formed part of his garden to a developer. Before contracts were exchanged, the taxpayer signed an agreement on 2 June 2016, allowing the developer to start development work. The formal sale contract was signed on 7 September 2016. In 2021, HMRC sought to disallow Principal Private Residence relief (PPR), arguing the land was no longer part of the residence once work began. The key issue was therefore whether the disposal date was 7 September 2016, after development started, or 2 June 2016, before it began. The taxpayer claimed the agreement signed on the earlier date constituted a contract or constructive trust, such that PPR relief was available. While the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) found the letter did not demonstrate an intention for immediate disposal nor create a constructive trust, they ruled the land was appropriated to trading stock on 2 June 2016, allowing PPR relief. Written by Jacob Ashforth, solicitor at Burges Salmon.

A colloquialism describing the period during which an employee remains bound by their contract of employment but is required, usually under an express term of the contract, not to attend work or make contact with clients or customers.

This Practice Note explains the rationale for garden leave and the circumstances in which an employer may wish to use it. It explores whether, if there is no express provision in the contract of employment, an employer can place an employee on ‘enforced’ garden leave, and the circumstances in which an employer may enforce an express garden leave clause. It discusses the interaction between garden leave and the employee’s right to work, and between garden leave and the contract of employment, including how garden leave impacts on terms and conditions of employment such as holiday entitlement, directorships and other offices, and contractual duties. It also considers whether an employee has a right to be paid during garden leave, and its effect on post-termination restrictions. It covers enforcement issues, and the factors a court will consider in deciding whether to grant an injunction. It lists items for consideration when it comes to drafting a garden leave clause. In broad terms, putting an employee on 'garden leave' means the employer sending the employee home on full

Where the employer insists the employee waits out their period of notice, not working for the employer, but not working for anyone else either.