You have asked: If an employment contract requires notice of termination ‘in writing’ but does not define what this means, would notice by email constitute effective service? Can an employee argue that notice of termination has not been effectively given if it is served by a method not expressly set out in the contract? There is no statutory requirement that notice of termination needs to be given in writing (notice may be oral or in writing), provided it is clearly communicated. For further information, see Practice Note: Contractual notice. All contracts of employment must include details of the length of notice that the employee is entitled to receive in order to terminate the contract. For further information, see Practice Note: Written statements of employment particulars—What the written statement

The prescribed requirements under the Assured Shorthold Tenancy Notices and Prescribed Requirements (England) Regulations 2015, SI 2015/1646, reg 2 apply to tenancies granted on or after 1 October 2015 (not including statutory periodic tenancies that came into being on or after 1 October 2015 at the end of an AST granted before that date). Therefore, if the original fixed-term tenancy was granted on or after 1 October 2015, the prescribed requirements will apply to the fixed term tenancy and the statutory periodic tenancy which arose on expiry of the fixed term. Under the prescribed requirements, the landlord must provide an EPC under the Energy Performance of Buildings (England and Wales)

It is assumed that the site subject to enforcement is owned by the landlord but let to a tenant occupier with an interest in the land. If an enforcement notice issued under section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990) is not appealed, it will take effect on the date stated in the notice, and cannot thereafter be questioned in any proceedings whatsoever on any of the grounds on which an appeal could have been brought (TCPA 1990, s 285). TCPA 1990

HMRC considers that an amendment to an enterprise management incentive (EMI) option will be the grant of a new right if it involves any change to the fundamental terms of an EMI option that improves the rights of an option holder which is not ‘de minimis’ (see HMRC guidance: ETASSUM54060). For these purposes, the fundamental terms of an option are: • the number of shares to be acquired • the price at which they are to be acquired • when they can be acquired In the same guidance, HMRC has confirmed that minor alterations which are not contrary to the requirements of Schedule

If an employee ceases to meet ‘the employment requirement’ in paragraph 25 of Schedule 5 to the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (Schedule 5) then this will be a disqualifying event in relation to any enterprise management incentives (EMI) option that they hold. A disqualifying event will also occur if they no longer satisfy the ‘working time requirement’ in paragraph 26 of Schedule 5 or if the average weekly amount of the employee's reckonable time in relevant employment falls below the statutory threshold. Therefore, any changes in the relevant option holder’s employment arrangements when they moved to work for the US subsidiary or since then will need to be considered in detail to determine whether an EMI disqualifying event has inadvertently been triggered. In summary, provided that throughout the period since their option was granted, they have been employed on a continuous basis by either the

Any company whose shares are the subject of enterprise management incentives (EMI) options at any time during a tax year is required to submit an annual return in respect of the EMI options to HMRC.  The following are reportable events, and the EMI annual return template has a separate worksheet tab for each of these, so that the company can input the relevant information in relation to that particular reportable event: • adjustment of EMI options (with details to be reported under the EMI40_Adjustments_V3

The relevant legislation (Part 4, Schedule 6 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 (EIA 2006)) and guidance (Governance handbook and Schools causing concern—Statutory guidance for local authorities) are silent on whether the duty to consult still exists where a local authority wishes to exercise its powers under EIA 2006, s 65 to appoint an Interim Executive Board (IEB) and the entire governing body has resigned. Warning notice According to the above guidance at page 14, a warning notice under EIA 2006, Part 4 must be given in writing to the governing body of the school and must set out: • the matters on which the local authority’s concerns are based. These should be set out in some detail and explain the facts

Please see Q&A: Can a landlord subsequently increase the premium which it has stated

The Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (IR 2016), SI 2016/1024, Pt 7, Ch 2 relates to statutory demands under sections 123(1)(a) and 222(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) which apply to companies, while IR 2016, SI 2016/1024, Pt 10, Ch 1 relates to statutory demands in bankruptcy. In answering this Q&A, it should be noted that IR 2016, SI 2016/1024, Pt 7 does not provide a direct answer to the treatment of errors in statutory demands while more detailed guidance is provided under IR 2016, SI 2016/1024, Pt 10. Nonetheless, even in cases where there is little statutory guidance (IR 2016, SI 2016/1024, Pt 7) or such guidance is given (IR 2016, SI 2016/1024, Pt 10), the jurisprudence has been useful in illustrating the court’s approach to such issues. Where there is a correlation between a repealed rule in the case law and the IR 2016, SI 2016/1024, this is noted below. The

At common law, it is not possible for a third party to claim against another party’s insurer, as an insurance contract is between the insurer and the policyholder. Therefore, where a person insured under a liability insurance policy becomes liable for injury or damage sustained by a third party, the third party (not being a party to the contract of insurance) has no right to proceed directly against the insurers. Historically, this position was the same where the insured party became insolvent, as the policy money became part of his general assets and the injured third party ranked as an ordinary creditor. The hardship caused by in scenario led to the introduction of a limited system of statutory subrogation, where in the event of the insolvency of the insured, the third party was entitled to be paid the policy money (and if necessary,

We refer you to Practice Note: Applying under the Representative of an Overseas Business category which outlines the eligibility requirements and procedure (including application form and fee information) for making an initial or extension application under the Representative of an Overseas Business UK immigration category. This note provides details on the eligibility requirements for Sole Representatives of an Overseas Business. In particular, note that one of the requirements for the sole representative is to supply letters confirming: • the overseas company will establish either a wholly-owned subsidiary or register a branch in the UK in the same

Persons who are entitled to a grant to an estate can choose not to take out that grant. It would be unusual for those entitled to take out letters of administration to an insolvent estate to do so, unless to take, or defend, proceedings for or against the estate that may bring a material advantage to that estate. If there was some advantage those persons set out in the Non-contentious Probate Rules 1987 (SI 1987/2024), rule 22 can make an application. If there is someone within the list available and capable of taking out a grant, they have the right to renounce that entitlement and that may well be the safest course in circumstances where there is an insolvent estate. For further reading on this, see the further reading link to Chapter 15 of Tristram and Coote's Probate Practice