For the purposes of the below response we have only considered the transfer of a going concern (TOGC) condition at Value Added Tax (Special Provisions) Order 1995, SI 1995/1268, reg 5(1)(a)(i) that the assets of the business transferred ‘are to be used by the transferee, in carrying on the same kind of business…as that carried on by the transferor’. We assume you have considered (and

Arbitration analysis: The Hong Kong Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal from the refusal of a stay under section 20 of the Arbitration Ordinance (AO). Section 20(9) of the AO provides that no appeal shall lie from the refusal of a stay except with the leave of the first instance judge, which had been refused. Although invited to do so, the Hong Kong Court of Appeal declined to provide obiter guidance on the threshold for granting a stay under section 20 of the AO. While recognising the issue as one of general significance, the Hong Kong Court of Appeal instead deferred a discussion to a case in which the issue can be properly raised. The current Hong Kong position to require the court to stay an action when there is a prima facie case of an arbitration agreement is not without its difficulties, particularly as this case demonstrates, where it was contended that the arbitration agreement was forged. Written by Paul Starr, partner at King & Wood Mallesons.

EU Law analysis: In Budapest Főváros IV Kerület Újpest Önkormányzat Polgármesteri Hivatala v Nemzeti Adatvédelmi és Információszabadság Hatóság, the Court of Justice ruled that national supervisory authorities have the power to order data controllers to erase unlawfully processed personal data, even if the data subject has not directly asked for this. The court also stated that, when data processing is unlawful, the national supervisory authority can order the erasure of personal data whether the controller collected the data directly from data subjects or from third parties. This ruling could have a significant impact on future data-driven products and services, as businesses may not only end up with significant fines but may also be obliged to delete valuable datasets that violate the EU GDPR, even without any request from a data subject. Written by Kinga Kálmán, Junior Associate, Ádám Simon, Senior Associate, and Bálint Halász, Partner at Bird & Bird.

Local Government analysis: Optima Health (Optima) challenged the decision by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to exclude its bid from a mini-competition procedure due to non-compliance with a requirement not to exceed maximum framework prices (the Decision). Mr Justice Freedman, sitting in the English High Court, dismissed the challenge finding that the Decision was lawful in the circumstances. Written by Andrew Dean, head of UK Procurement and Public Law and Hafsah Akhtar, trainee solicitor at Clifford Chance.

Validity of a clause providing that licence or tenancy will automatically renew for a further fixed term unless the licensee or tenant has served a written notice to terminate the licence or tenancy It is not unusual for a tenancy agreement to contain a break clause (known more formally as an option to determine the tenancy). However, a break clause is an option for one or either party to terminate the tenancy while the tenancy is still in its fixed term. For example, a tenancy with a two-year fixed term may contain a break clause providing that either party can terminate the tenancy at the one year mark. Alternatively, a tenancy agreement

Assured tenancies (ATs) replaced Rent Act 1977 tenancies as the main form of private residential security of tenure on 15 January 1989 under the Housing Act 1988 (HA 1988). A landlord is only entitled to take back possession of a property let on an AT, if it is able to establish a ground under HA 1988, s 8 and Sch 2 (Section 8 ground), and the court is either then obliged in respect of a mandatory ground, or exercises its discretion in respect of a discretionary ground, to order possession (see Practice Note: Terminating assured and assured shorthold tenancies—pre-Renters' Rights Act position — Section 8—pre-Renters’ Rights Act 2025). The requirements for an AT are set out at HA 1988, s 1. An assured shorthold

While proceedings under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 are dealt with under the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR), SI 1998/3132, proceedings under Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) and section 17 of the Married Women’s Property Act 1882 are subject to the Family Procedure rules 2010, SI 2010/2955. A Part 36 offer (ie made under CPR 36) will therefore only be effective as to costs in relation to proceedings that are subject to the CPR. See also Practice Note: TOLATA 1996—Part 36 offers. Even where the parties are spouses or civil partners, Crozier v Crozier is authority that while the parties can

This Practice Note covers the following aspects of an office-holder’s liability for adverse costs in litigation: • the general position if an office-holder is a claimant or a defendant in litigation • the office-holder’s right of recoupment from the insolvent estate • the costs consequences on discontinuance of a claim • the priority of any adverse costs order • the personal liability of office-holders for adverse costs • security for costs The general position if an office-holder is a claimant or defendant in litigation If an office-holder commences proceedings in their own name, they do so at their own risk as to costs. If a costs order is made against them, they will be personally liable and they cannot limit that liability to the amount of available assets in the insolvent estate (Re Wilson Lovatt & Sons). They will however, unless the court orders otherwise, have a right to recoup the amount of such an adverse costs order from the insolvent

We have assumed that: • the distribution to the beneficiaries is within the scope of section 731 of the Income Tax Act 2007 (ITA 2007) • the income of the offshore company and the trust does not constitute ‘protected foreign source income’ within the meaning of ITA 2007, ss 721A and 729A • the settlor is not taxable on the distribution to the

It has been assumed that the trust in question is a non-UK resident (offshore) discretionary trust. We have not considered any UK tax consequences for the offshore trust in making the loans (eg tainting). We have assumed the beneficiary is not also the settlor of the trust, that the beneficiary is both UK resident and domiciled and that the trust property is all excluded property within the meaning of section 48(3) of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (IHTA 1984). The deductibility of the deceased’s liabilities for inheritance tax (IHT) purposes will depend on a number of factors and circumstances, including whether the loans were created to artificially reduce the value of the estate and whether the debt will actually be repaid on the beneficiary/borrower’s death. IHTA 1984, ss 162–162C

Does Landowner B have to serve a paragraph 20 notice? In the event that Landowner B needs the operator’s equipment to be physically moved from its location on Landowner A’s site, failing which it would create an obstacle to the development or would suffer physical damage as a result of the development, Landowner B will need to serve a paragraph 20 notice for alteration (ie removal or relocation) of the operator’s equipment. This is on the basis that paragraph 20 also covers persons with an interest in adjacent land who wish to redevelop ('improvement' includes redevelop for the purposes of the Code (Telecommunications Act 1984, Sch 2). In

Was the break option effective? If the full year’s rent paid prior to the break date was paid in accordance with the terms and obligations of the lease, ie the monies fell due prior to the termination of the lease, then this is very unlikely to give rise to an implication that the landlord, in accepting those monies: • recognised any right of occupation of the tenant beyond the break date under a new 1954 Act protected periodic tenancy or • had reached an agreement with