Where an employee acquires newly issued shares under an employee shareholder agreement, this raises practical difficulties, as: • it is a legislative requirement that the shares must be fully paid up and that the employee must give no consideration for the acquisition of his employee shareholder shares, other than entering into the employee shareholder agreement, but • under UK company law, a company is not permitted to allot newly issued shares for less than their nominal value, and this must be paid up in money or money's worth Clearly, if the company is established outside the UK, it may not be subject to the requirement that nominal value must be paid in order for shares to be issued,

The Vice-President of the Court of Protection, Mr Justice Hayden, has issued guidance for judges and practitioners offering practical solutions to some of the issues being raised in connection with coronavirus, including this question. See Court of Protection: Guidance COVID-19. In this guidance, Hayden

An application may be made to the court for it to consider the making of a decree nisi in the proceedings at any time after the time for filing the acknowledgment of service has expired, provided that no party has filed an acknowledgment of service indicating an intention to defend the case, and in any other case, at any time after the time for filing an answer to every application for a matrimonial or civil partnership order made in the proceedings has expired (Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI

The Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 (MLR 2017), SI 2017/692, as amended, anticipate that there may be occasions where it is simply not possible to identify the beneficial owner of a body corporate. Here, you may treat the senior person in the body corporate responsible for managing it as its beneficial owner, if (and only if) you have exhausted all possible means of identifying the beneficial owner, and (i) have not succeeded in doing so, or (ii) you are not satisfied the individual identified is in fact the beneficial owner. There is no guidance on what is meant by ‘all possible means’, but the terminology used suggests a high threshold. Legal Sector Affinity Group (LSAG) anti-money laundering (AML) guidance for the legal

Often a view has to be taken as to the extent to which it is commercially viable to pursue the tenant. There is always a risk that more is spent in pursuing the tenant than is actually owed, with little prospect of either sum being recovered from the tenant. A starting point of course is that sums due under an assured shorthold tenancy (AST) are a debt which can form the basis of a claim in the county court. Where less than £10,000 is owed, the claim will usually be allocated to the small claims track where each side pays its own costs irrespective of who wins unless a party can point to the other having acted unreasonably (CPR 27.14(2)(g)). The successful party will however be able to recover its court costs, a reasonable sum incurred in travelling to and from the hearing and a sum for loss of earnings

Where the client is under the Court of Protection and the client does not have the requisite capacity to make the application themselves, a decision as to where an individual should live would normally be classed as a Health and Welfare decision (see section 17(1)(a) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) although, depending on the specific grounds of appeal, there may well be a Property and Financial Affairs element if the decision was based on the financial position of the patient (see MCA 2005, s 18). Consideration therefore needs to be given as to whom should make the appeal (ie the Property and Affairs Deputy, the Health and Welfare Deputy

A decision of the High Court in a criminal cause or matter may be appealed to the Supreme Court on a point of law of general public importance, by either the prosecutor or the defence with leave from either the High Court or Supreme Court. It is worth noting, however, that where a judgment arises from proceedings that are related to criminal proceedings but are in reality collateral to them, they will not themselves constitute a criminal cause or matter. In its ordinary and natural meaning, the term ‘in a criminal cause or matter’ has been found by the Supreme Court to include proceedings by way of judicial review of a decision made in a criminal cause (see: Belhaj v Director of Public

For the purposes of this Q&A we have assumed the appeal is against an abatement notice for statutory nuisance issued in the magistrates' court. We refer you to Practice Note: Appealing an abatement notice for information on the process for appealing an abatement notice. The recipient of an abatement notice can appeal the notice within 21 days of service. The day it is received is the first of the 21 days, so the person responsible must act quickly if they plan to appeal. The permissible grounds of appeal are set out in the Statutory Nuisance (Appeals) Regulations 1995, SI 1995/2644. Grounds of appeal include: • lack of justification

In answering this Q&A, we assume that there is a degree of uncertainty as to whether and to what extent the court has endorsed the draft directions agreed between the parties. We also assume that the court has not, or at least not yet, provided the parties with a sealed order confirming the future directions in the litigation but has rather simply ordered (presumably by way of letter) that there be a stay until 8 February 2018. This is unusual, as we would have expected any directions to

Challenging the decision of a public authority We were not clear as to the type of policy to be challenged, therefore, we have assumed that this Q&A is referring to a specific policy issued by the National Heath Service (NHS) for service provision rather than a commercial policy. In deciding to challenge the decision of a public authority, a judicial review can be sought. This is the process by which the courts exercise a supervisory jurisdiction over the exercise of public functions by public bodies. In deciding to bring proceedings, it should be considered that: • judicial review only lies against public bodies when carrying out public functions • a claim for judicial review may only be brought by a claimant with a sufficient interest in the matter • only certain types of relief are available in judicial review proceedings (namely, a mandatory order, a prohibiting order, a quashing order,

In responding to this Q&A, the procedure which is adopted by the Property Chamber Land Registration Division First-tier Tribunal (the Tribunal) has been considered. The relevant procedural rules are to be found in the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, SI 2013/1169 (the Regulations) which are supplemented by the Property Chamber Land Registration division First-tier Tribunal—A short guide (the Guide). The Tribunal is given wide powers of case management. Subject to the provisions of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, and any other enactment, the Tribunal may regulate its own procedure. It may give a direction in relation to the conduct or disposal of proceedings at any time. In particular, it may permit or require a party to amend a document. Specific provision is made as to the evidence upon which the parties may rely at any hearing. The Tribunal may give directions as to the nature of the evidence or submissions

There are several methods of enforcement a judgment creditor can use, whether this being one or several enforcement methods at once, these include: • taking control of the debtor’s goods • charging order over the debtor’s land or securities • third part debt orders (TPDO) • attachment of earnings • income from debtor’s assets—equitable execution Taking control of the debtor’s goods This method involves instructing an enforcement agent to enter the judgement debtor’s property and ‘take control’ of goods in order to sell them