This General Power of Attorney is made on [date] by [name] of [address]. I appoint

This Practice Note explains the concept of the general power of competence (GPC) afforded to local authorities by the Localism Act 2011 (LA 2011). It covers the nature and scope of the power, the charging and trading provisions it facilitates and the restrictions in its use. For a comprehensive discussion of overarching considerations for sound decision making, see Practice Note: Key considerations in local authority decision making. Local authority is a creature of statute As Lord Templeman famously indicated in Hazell v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC: ‘...local authority, although democratically elected and representative of the area, is not a sovereign body and can only do such things as are expressly or impliedly authorised by Parliament.’ Every local authority must therefore have statutory authority for all of its actions. In the past councils found this to be an unhelpful constraint particularly when they wished to provide local functions and services more context-sensitively. This was because of the absence (or perceived absence) of suitable legal powers (vires) to facilitate such an approach. What is the general

This Practice Note sets out the general principles to be considered when making an application for maintenance pending suit (MPS) under section 22 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) and Schedule 5, Part 8 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (CPA 2004) (known as maintenance pending outcome of proceedings). It provides guidance on quantifying maintenance pending suit, duration and backdating, pre-existing agreements and refunds of payments. Key principles are that an order for maintenance pending suit cannot be made earlier than the presentation of the application/petition for an order of divorce, dissolution, nullity or (judicial) separation and it must end on the determination of the proceedings/suit (in most cases, the date of final order/decree absolute). However, an order for ‘interim maintenance’ may be made in respect of the period thereafter, pending the conclusion of financial remedy proceedings. The court has the power to make an order requiring either party to make to the other such periodical payments for their maintenance as it thinks reasonable. There must be an application for a financial order

This Practice Note sets out the procedural steps to be taken where the parties have reached an agreement by consent within financial remedy proceedings, including provision for the submission of consent orders via the online system and the information that must be provided to the court in Form D81 (Statement of Information for a consent order in relation to a financial remedy). It also provides practical guidance on the court’s role when considering a draft consent order and considers the court’s approach to agreements reached via non-court dispute resolution, eg mediation, arbitration and collaborative law. For practical guidance on drafting a consent order, see Practice Note: Drafting the terms of a financial consent order. Use of the online system is mandatory where the applicant or both parties are legally represented; only a small number of applications are excluded from scope, see further Practice Note: Online applications for financial consent orders. Where the consent order has been agreed during the course of contested financial remedy proceedings, the consent order is submitted using the online system for contested

What is insurance law? Insurance law can be split into three parts: • insurance contract law which governs the contractual relationship between insureds and insurers • the law of intermediaries which regulates insurance business which is transacted through agents (this is true for most insurance business) • insurance company law which is concerned with the financial soundness, probity and regulation of insurance companies This Practice Note largely deals with insurance contract law. For more information on insurance regulation, see our ‘regulation of insurance’ subtopic, including Insurance & Reinsurance—regulatory framework—overview and Insurance & Reinsurance—Regulated activities—overview. Reform of the insurance sector In January 2006 the Law Commission and Scottish Law Commission (together the Law Commissions) started consulting on reforming insurance contract law. Following the consultation, the Law Commissions’ work was broken into three sub-projects: • consumer insurance law reform: pre-contract disclosure and misrepresentation • insurance contract law reform: business disclosure, warranties, insurers’ remedies for fraudulent claims, and late payment • insurance contract law reform: insurable interest Consumer insurance law reform—pre-contract disclosure and misrepresentation Following

This Practice Note sets out the general principles applied by the court in adoption proceedings including the paramountcy principle and the impact of delay in reaching decisions. It further considers the application of the welfare checklist, the range of available powers and that the court should not make an order unless to do so is better for the child. The general principles about adoption are contained in section 1 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (ACA 2002). They variously apply to a court, an adoption agency, or both. A local authority responsible for children’s services is an adoption agency and when acting in that capacity does so under that status, which is different from acting under its powers and duties under the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989). The framework of ACA 2002 is intended to: • simplify the adoption process • enable a critical stage of decision-making (whether to authorise placement for adoption) to be undertaken at an earlier stage than before • place the emphasis on the child’s welfare, and • avoid delay The Family Procedure

Parties who live together may regulate the terms of their cohabitation by entering into a cohabitation contract. It is prudent to do so to ensure clarity both during the course of the relationship and in the event that it should break down. A cohabitation contract may make provision for both situations. This Practice Note details the matters to be taken into account when drafting a cohabitation contract and the general principles to be adhered to. It also provides guidance on oral agreements between cohabitants. Cohabitation contracts were once void on the ground of public policy. That is no longer the case. In Dyson Holdings Ltd v Fox, Bridge LJ said: 'There has been a complete revolution in society's attitude to unmarried partnerships of the kind under consideration. Such unions are far commoner than they used to be. The social stigma that once attached to them has almost, if not entirely, disappeared.' For guidance on the terms of a cohabitation contract including financial provision, property rights, provision for children and variation, as well as provisions that

This Practice Note sets out the general principles to be applied by the court when considering whether to make a lump sum order within financial proceedings, including as to the impact of remarriage, any delay in making an application and variation. It also provides guidance on interim lump sum orders and lump sum orders in favour of children of the marriage or civil partnership. Under section 23(1) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) and Schedule 5, Part 1 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (CPA 2004), the court may make an order for such lump sum or sums as may be specified on the granting of an order/decree of divorce/dissolution, nullity or (judicial) separation or at any time thereafter. Save in the case of a (judicial) separation order, the orders will not take effect until the grant of a final order/decree absolute. Only a single lump sum order may be made, although that order, where appropriate, may include provision for the payment of more than one lump sum, for example where one sum is to be paid

This Practice Note sets out an overview of the options available in relation to pensions on divorce, nullity, (judicial) separation or dissolution of a civil partnership, including offsetting, pension sharing and pension attachment orders, and orders that may be made by the courts. It also considers the court’s approach to pensions and the impact of pensions reform. In proceedings for divorce, nullity, (judicial) separation or dissolution of a civil partnership, the court can make various orders dealing with the parties’ respective pension entitlements. Sections 25(2)(h) and 25B(1)(b) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) require the court to have regard to the benefits under a pension arrangement that, by reason of dissolution or annulment of the marriage, a party to the marriage will lose the chance of acquiring. MCA 1973, ss 25(2)(a) and 25B(1)(a) focus on the benefits that a party to a marriage has, or is likely to have. There are equivalent provisions in the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (CPA 2004). Pension rights will often form a substantial asset

This Practice Note sets out the statutory checklist that will be considered by the court in relation to periodical payments for a spouse or civil partner together with the types of orders that may be made and the approach to quantum. It considers term orders, including extendable and non-extendable term orders, section 28(1A) bars, and clean break provisions. It also sets out the court’s approach to nominal orders and the variation of such orders. The court’s power to order periodical payments is contained in section 23(1)(a) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) and Schedule 5, Part 1, para 2(1)(a) to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (CPA 2004), namely an order that either party to the marriage or civil partnership shall make to the other such periodical payments (commonly known as maintenance), for such term as may be specified in the order. In determining whether or not a periodical payments order is appropriate, regard must be had to the checklist set out in MCA 1973, s 25/CPA 2004, Sch 5 Pt 5. The most relevant

Under Section 19 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, a person is prohibited from carrying on a regulated activity unless they are authorised or an exempt person.

Following amendments to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA 2000) made by the Financial Services Act 2012, the Financial Services Authority ceased to exist and its functions were split between the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA). The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (PRA-regulated Activities Order) 2013, SI 2013/556 specifies the activities that are PRA-regulated activities. Accordingly, the PRA is responsible for the authorisation and prudential regulation of firms that carry on PRA-regulated activities. PRA-authorised firms are dual-regulated in that they are also subject to regulation by the FCA for conduct purposes. FCA-authorised firms are regulated solely by the FCA for both prudential and conduct purposes. For further information, see FCA and PRA authorisation under Part 4A of FSMA 2000. Both FCA and PRA-authorised firms are required to report to the FCA and/or the PRA (as applicable) on a regular basis in relation to the firm's financial condition and its compliance with applicable rules and requirements imposed by or under FSMA 2000. The