The Court of Appeal in its amended judgment in Simmons v Castle in 2012 held that the 10% increase in general damages in all civil claims decided after 1 April 2013 would not apply to cases funded by way of a pre-commencement funding arrangement. Prior to 1 April 2013, a number of cases funded by Legal Aid were reconsidered by the solicitors dealing with the cases given the impact of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO 2012) and the impact that this would have on Legal Aid funding. In some case, the Legal Aid funding was discontinued and a conditional fee agreement (CFA) entered into instead prior to 1 April 2013 when the act came into force. A number of cases have come before the courts in which the defendants at the detailed assessment stage have sought to argue that the change to a CFA was not reasonable and costs judges

If a valid election under section 431 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (ITEPA 2003) is not made within the prescribed 14-day limit from acquisition of ‘restricted securities’, then there is no simple way of replicating the same outcome, in terms of avoiding income tax (and National Insurance) liabilities in respect of those securities. However, if the taxpayer acquires the relevant ‘restricted securities’ for an amount equal to their unrestricted market value at that time, then there is no scope for the formula in ITEPA 2003, s 428 to impose income tax on any subsequent ‘chargeable event’. This is because ‘IUP’, as defined in ITEPA 2003, s 428(1), will be zero. This approach, of course, assumes that the unrestricted market value at the time of acquisition can be easily ascertained. This may well not be the case and a valuation debate with HMRC

If the Articles require consent of the shareholders to take steps to liquidate or dissolve a company, can an Administrator still be appointed without the requisite consent? We refer you to Practice Notes: Court appointments—who can apply and in what circumstances? and Out-of-court administrator appointments—who can appoint and in what circumstances?. Inter alia, the company or the directors can appoint an administrator either by way of an out-of-court appointment or by way of a court application. An out-of-court appointment can be made by the directors and the company, except in the following circumstances: • when a winding-up petition has been presented, but not yet disposed • when an administration

Service Once proceedings have commenced, all parties are required to give an address for service of documents relating to the proceedings. Under CPR 6.23(1), the address for service must include the full post code, unless the court orders otherwise. The address will only apply to the specific set of proceedings for which it was provided. Where a party has given the business address of a solicitor as their address for service (CPR 6.23(2)), that solicitor will be considered to be acting for the party, despite any change in solicitor, until the provisions in CPR 42 and CPR PD 42

The limited information available suggests the safe course must be to ask the court to approve the change of trustees, at least if there is any risk of controversy as to the identity of the new trustees. In the original order, the court clearly took a particular interest in, and specified, who the trustees of the property should be. Although the usual rule is that the trustees for the time being have power

An EPC is required when: • an existing building is sold or rented out • when a building under construction is finished • after refurbishment when there are greater or fewer separate parts of the building and the modification includes the provision or extension of fixed heating, air conditioning or mechanical ventilation systems For further guidance on whether a building requires an EPC, see page 7 of the Energy Performance Certificates for the construction, sale and let of non-dwellings. A building is defined in the Energy Performance of Buildings (England and Wales) Regulations 2012 (EPC Regs 2012), SI 2012/3118, reg

The appropriate course of action will depend on a number of factors, including whether the director already has a property and financial affairs lasting power of attorney (LPA) and whether there are any issues currently relating to the director's capacity. In order to assist you with your research, we refer you to: • Practice Note: Business and commercial LPAs • Q&As: ◦ Do any special requirements exist for a business lasting powers of attorney? which states: 'In the case of a small private company with a sole director, it may not be appropriate for the

Immediately prior to dissolution of a company in the UK, whether following administration, liquidation, striking off or voluntary dissolution, all property and rights which are left behind in the dissolved company are considered bona vacantia or ‘vacant goods’. Bona vacantia goods vest in the Crown and are governed by the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006). As with any property rights, intellectual property rights, such as registered trade marks or designs, fall within the scope of the bona vacantia rules and will also vest in the Crown on dissolution. However, there is one exception—the Crown’s statutory power, with or without notice, to disclaim or to give up its interest in bona vacantia. If property, including IP, in bona vacantia is disclaimed it is treated as though it never passed to the Crown (CA 2006, s 1014). By disclaiming its rights in the property,

Article 3 of Rome I Where parties have entered into a contract which contains an applicable law clause, the parties must have validly consented to that clause. Where a party has not they may dispute the existence or validity of that clause as provided for in Article 3(5) of Regulation (EC) 593/2008, Rome I. This article states that the existence and validity of an agreement is to be determined in accordance with Article 10 of Regulation (EC) 593/2008, Rome I, Article 11 of Regulation (EC) 593/2008, Rome I and Article 12 of Regulation (EC)

When an application for a non-molestation order is made on notice, the applicant must serve a copy of the application and statement in support, and notice of any hearing set by the court, on the respondent personally. When the application is made without notice, the applicant must, as soon as reasonably practicable, serve on the respondent personally a copy of the application together with any statement in support, the order and a copy of the written record of the reasons if the order is made by lay justices. The service cannot be by the applicant themselves, and typically a process server is instructed to effect service. Issues can arise, however, if the whereabouts of the respondent are unknown, or if the respondent is trying to evade personal

The key procedural requirement to be considered in answering this question is to be found in Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, 7.12. FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, 7.12(1)(a) provides that a respondent may not make an application for a matrimonial or civil partnership order for the same relief in respect of the same marriage or civil partnership, unless the first application has been dismissed or finally determined or the court gives permission. Therefore, it is suggested that initially the respondent’s

Pre-emption rights are an important shareholder protection because they enable an existing shareholder to maintain their percentage shareholding in the company on a new issue of shares. Where a private company's articles of association contain pre-emption rights which differ from but do not exclude the statutory pre-emption rights, do the statutory pre-emption rights still need to be disapplied and, if so, how can they be disapplied? Further, what if the articles contain bespoke pre-emption rights provision but do not contain a procedure for disapplying them? How can these contractual pre-emption rights be disapplied? Disapplying statutory pre-emption rights The Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) gives existing shareholders of companies a statutory right of pre-emption in respect of the allotment of new equity securities. For private companies only, all or any of the pre-emption requirements in CA 2006 may be excluded by a provision in the articles of association.