Powers of the coroner The power to compel a witness is now contained under paragraph 1 of Schedule 5 to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (CJA 2009) gives a coroner power to summon witnesses and to compel the production of evidence for the purposes of an investigation (paragraph 1(2)) or an inquest (paragraph 1(1)) by way of written notice: ‘Schedule 5 Power to require evidence to be given or produced 1 (1) A senior coroner may by notice require a person to attend at a time and place stated in the notice and— (a) to give evidence at an inquest, (b) to produce any documents in the custody or under the control of the person which relate to a matter that is relevant to an inquest, or (c) to produce for inspection, examination or testing any other thing in the custody or under the control of the person which relates to a matter that is relevant to an inquest. (2)

If a person dies without making reasonable provision for one of the persons defined in section 1 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (I(PFD)A 1975), either in their Will or by reason of their intestacy, that person may apply to the court for it to make one or more of the orders set out in I(PFD)A 1975, s 2. Those include periodical payments, lump sum, transfer of property, settlement of property, variation of settlement and a variation of the trusts in which the deceased's estate is held. A widow is one of the class of persons defined

The question states that the female parent does not fall within the scope of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (HFEA 2008), accordingly this Q&A does not cover the circumstances in which parental responsibility may be acquired by a female parent pursuant to HFEA 2008 or the provisions of section 4ZA of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989). Should further reading be required on this topic see Practice Note: Acquisition of parental responsibility by female parents. In circumstances where a second female parent does not fall within the scope of HFEA 2008 they may, if they have married or become a civil partner of the child’s mother acquire parental responsibility as a step-parent,

Section 297E of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002) deals with the application to set aside an administrative cash forfeiture. A person aggrieved by the forfeiture of cash under POCA 2002, s 297A can apply to the magistrates’ court for an order setting aside all or part of the forfeiture. This could be, for example, because they are affected by the order but received no prior notice. See Practice Note: Forfeiture of cash without court order. Such an application must be made in writing before the end of 30 days starting with the day on which the period for objecting ended (see Magistrates’ Courts (Detention and Forfeiture of Cash) Rules 2002, SI 2002/2998,

The general rule for EEA national children born in the UK The Practice Note: Who is a British citizen (automatic acquisition)? explains that: ‘A person born in the UK or in a qualifying territory is a British citizen if, at the time of their birth, their father or mother is: • a British citizen, or • settled in the UK or in a qualifying territory’ The Practice Note goes on to explain that this can include the children of European Economic Area (EEA) nationals, although the exact position depends on when the child was born. If the child’s parents are not married, note that the Practice Note also discusses the situation for children born illegitimate before 1 July 2006, who were not considered to have a ‘father’ for the purposes of British nationality law. As set out in the Home Office’s Guide MN1, developments in European law

The concept of possession is crucial to our system of property law. When considering the entitlement to rights, the search is often for the person who has possession to land or rather the entitlement to it. The House of Lords in J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham considered the concept in relation to a claim of adverse possession. Citing with approval the decision of Slade J in Powell v McFarlane (1977) 38 P & CR 452 (not reported by LexisNexis®®), the House of Lords noted that possession of land entitled the person in possession,

Under the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), the period of an administration, or ‘administration term’ or ‘administrator’s term of office’, will, unless extended, automatically come to an end after 12 months regardless of how the administrator was initially appointed. For further information, see Practice Note: How an administration comes to an end—Automatic end. Following expiry of the administration term the former administrators have no standing to exercise any of the powers conferred on administrators under IA 1986. Actions taken by former administrators under the impression that their appointment is continuing may leave the administrators open to potential personal liability for trespass to or inference with the company’s property and breach of duty/misfeasance proceedings. If more time is required, an extension must be sought by the administrators with valid reasons to justify the need for an extension (typically that there are ongoing matters in the administration that are not yet concluded, such as more time being needed to sell assets). How and when can an administrator seek to

The enforcement of recitals in financial orders does present some difficulties due to potential uncertainties surrounding the technical jurisdiction of the family courts and the mechanism by which such orders are enforceable within the family jurisdiction. The Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955 contain explicit provision for the enforcement of undertakings in FPR 2010, PD 33A, and if an agreement outside of the powers of the family court is intended to have binding force, then in general, it will be better for this agreement to be given by means of a formal undertaking to the court. Parties said to be in breach of an obligation under a recital may well seek to argue that had it been intended to be binding, it would have been made by means of an undertaking. It is also worth noting that the usual limitations in relation to family finance agreements apply, and it will not, for example, be possible to enforce a recital which

An agricultural restriction (otherwise known as an agricultural tie) is a condition imposed by a local planning authority (LPA), when granting planning consent for the building of a dwelling, usually in an area where otherwise development would not be allowed. Owners of property subject to a restriction can try to remove the condition either through: • making a planning application for variation of the earlier consent under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990), or • making an application for a certificate of lawfulness Section 73 application TCPA

Where a creditor threatens to present a winding-up petition against a company, that company can apply to restrain such presentation if the company disputes the validity of the debt, or if it considers that it has a crossclaim that equals to or exceeds the amount demanded by the creditor. Usually before taking such a step, the company (or its solicitors) would write to the creditor seeking an undertaking that no petition would be presented; if no undertaking is forthcoming

A post-termination restriction will be unlawful and unenforceable, unless the party attempting to enforce it has a legitimate business interest to protect. Matters which amount to legitimate business interests tend to fall within the following general categories: • trade secrets and/or confidential information • trade connections, customers and suppliers • the stability of the employer's workforce For further information, see our Practice Notes: • Restraint of trade in employment • Legitimate business interest Where an employer is able to establish that it has a legitimate business interest to protect, it will only be able to enforce a post-termination restriction if the restraint is: • reasonable as between the parties, and • reasonable in the public interest For a restraint to be reasonable in the interests of the parties, it must afford no more than adequate protection to the party in whose favour it is imposed. Reasonableness as between the parties does

This question relates to the termination of an express declaration of trust. It is assumed that this is an express declaration of trust relating to real property, eg a declaration by co-owners that they hold upon trust for themselves as tenants in common in equal shares. Such a declaration of trust could be terminated by the parties entering into a fresh deed supplementary to the previous one, declaring that they have agreed that notwithstanding the previous declaration they agree that, henceforth, they will hold the property upon trust for one of them along or in different