The question refers to a business being carried on as a sole trader and the ownership of a building by 'the business'. A sole tradership (assuming that the question refers to a straightforward unincorporated business) does not have separate legal personality from the individual who owns and carries on the business. The business cannot therefore own assets or property and, instead, the assets and property used in the business are owned by the individual who owns the business. It will be a matter of fact whether those assets and property are used in, and are a part of, the business or are personal assets. Section 105(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (IHTA 1984) defines ‘relevant business property’ for

Definition of a preference A preference regarding an individual is defined in section 340 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) as where 'a person is one of the individual's creditors or a surety or guarantor for any of his debts or other liabilities, and the individual does anything or suffers anything to be done which has the effect of putting that person into a position which, in the event of the individual's bankruptcy, will be better than the position he would have been if that thing had not been done'. A preference claim only becomes relevant where the individual has been adjudged bankrupt. The claim is brought by the bankrupt’s trustee. IA 1986, s 340 further provides that a court will only make an order regarding

Where a solicitor and client have a fixed fee engagement but not all work set out in the engagement is completed, the solicitor’s right to charge fees will depend on the specific terms of the engagement and any other terms of business. For example, the terms of engagement may include an abortive fees clause (ie where the solicitor is entitled to charge certain fees if the client terminates the engagement) or a clause specifying how fees will be calculated where there is partial completion of the engagement. It will also be important to consider whether or not payment of the fixed fee is dependent on completion of the engagement or not. See the commentary in: Termination of retainer: Butterworths Costs Service [81] regarding the case of

Q&A: Is a solicitor bound by an undertaking that they cannot complete because the client has changed solicitors? deals with a situation where a solicitor cannot comply with an undertaking because of matters outside their control. It observes that the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) cases are littered with excuses for non-compliance by defaulting solicitors, including that the undertaking was made in relation to a client for whom the solicitor no longer acts. This does not relieve such solicitors of their professional obligation to comply with the undertaking. At best, it may direct the court or SDT as to the

Larke v Nugus letters A Larke v Nugus letter will be sent if there are potential grounds for challenging a Will, whether on the grounds of lack of testamentary capacity, want of knowledge and approval, or undue influence. For general information, see Practice Notes: Probate actions—lack of testamentary capacity and Probate actions—undue influence. Such a letter is a request for information about the preparation and execution of a Will to ascertain if the Will should be contested. It is usually made on behalf of persons who had expected to benefit under the Will but have been excluded. The purpose of sending a Larke v Nugus letter is to avoid unnecessary costs. The practice derives from the case of Larke v Nugus (1979) 123 SJ 337 (later reported in (2000) WTLR 1033 (not reported

In order to be valid, a Will must conform with the requirements of section 9 of the Wills Act 1837 which provides: ‘[No will shall be valid unless— (a) it is in writing, and signed by the testator, or by some other person in his presence and by his direction; and (b) it appears that the testator intended by his signature to give effect to the will; and (c) the signature is

Statutory declarations are a necessary part of insolvency proceedings, most commonly where a company enters members’ voluntary liquidation (MVL) (see section 89 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986)) and where a company enters administration by an out of court appointment (see the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (IR 2016), SI 2016/1024, r 3.17). Statutory declarations are governed by the Statutory Declarations Act 1835 (SDA 1835). SDA 1835, s 19 states: ‘Whenever any declaration shall be made and subscribed by any

The SRA Glossary defines an undertaking as: • a statement, given orally or in writing, whether or not it includes the word ‘undertake’ or ‘undertaking’ • to someone who reasonably places reliance on it • that

Home Office guidance on mergers, takeovers and similar changes can be found in the Tiers 2 and 5: guidance for sponsors at section 13. Unfortunately, the guidance does not clearly differentiate between mergers, takeovers and other changes of ownership, making it difficult to identify how to proceed in some circumstances. This Q&A deals specifically with a direct change of ownership—one sponsoring company being purchased by another. The Home Office is clear that they must be notified of such an occurrence: ‘13.1 You must report either: • change of ownership • a merger • a takeover • de-merger If you fail to do so, we will take action against you. Any action could lead to any migrants

The difficulty with the scenario described is that unlike other provisions of the Immigration Rules, such as Immigration Rules, Part 7, para 276ADE which explicitly requires the applicant to satisfy the Rules 'at the time of the application', the partners Rules found in the Immigration Rules, Appendix FM do not include an equivalent requirement. Appendix FM relating to the financial requirement states that the Applicant must provide specified evidence of a gross annual income of at least £18,600 (or additional specified income amounts if there are any children). See, eg Immigration Rules, Appendix FM, paras E-ECP.3.1. The way to satisfy this requirement is specified in the Immigration Rules, Appendix FM-SE. References in this Appendix in respect of the financial requirement are concerned with whether the applicant/sponsor earns the relevant minimum threshold 'at the date of the application' (see Immigration Rules, Appendix

In this Q&A, ‘funds’ are considered in the context of child benefit. Child benefit is defined as: ‘a tax-free, regular payment made to anyone bringing up a child or young person. It is paid for each child who qualifies and is not affected by income or savings, so most people bringing up a child can get it.’ The general rule is that no person subject to immigration control is entitled to child benefit. However, there are several exceptions, including in respect of those: ‘who are the family member of a person who is a UK, EEA, or Swiss national.

L4.33. of the Workers and Temporary Workers—guidance for sponsors part 1: apply for a licence states that a sponsor license holder ‘must always have a minimum of one Level 1 user who is a settled worker’ (as defined), with