While the case of Rushbrooke UK Ltd v 4 Designs Concept Ltd may be distinguished by its particular facts, most notably a deadlock situation affecting the board of directors (see News analysis: Wasted costs against solicitors acting without proper authority (Rushbrooke UK Ltd v 4 Designs Concept Ltd)), any retained advisors in a corporate context should satisfy themselves that

Clare Ambrose, Twenty Essex This is a ‘once in a generation’ challenge. We will see over the next months how the court system and the arbitration community respond. Arbitration is more flexible, and it is already common for directions to be made electronically, CMCs to be heard by telephone and disputes to be resolved by documents only. It is hoped that arbitration will be agile to meet the needs of parties. If so, and virtual hearings (or even partially virtual hearings) start to work well, then they will become an attractive feature. Corporations weathering this crisis will be mindful of resilience for the next one. Arbitration will be attractive if it is seen to work in times of crisis. If it becomes cheaper and more sustainable too then that must be a bonus. Hamish Lal, Akin Gump The tangible and significant impacts of coronavirus further support the notion that arbitration is preferable over litigation

The Law Commission on Electronic Execution of Documents (Law Com No. 386) concludes that there is no need for formal primary legislation to reinforce the legal validity of electronic signatures on documents but is more equivocal on the question of video witnessing of electronic signatures. The issue arises in particular where the relevant signatures are made upon the execution of a deed. In respect of deeds, section 1(3) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 (LP(MP)A 1989) provides that an instrument is validly executed as a deed if, and only if, it is signed by an individual in the presence of a witness who attests the signature; or at their direction and in their presence and the presence of two witnesses who each attest the

Consideration should be given to: • disclosure in employment tribunal proceedings (see Practice Note: Disclosure in employment tribunal proceedings) • preparation of the bundle of documents for use at the final hearing (see Practice Note: Preparation for employment tribunal final hearing—Bundles) • the possibility of privacy orders and disclosure restrictions (see Practice Note: Private hearings, restricted reporting, protecting individuals’ identity and national security: employment tribunals) Before processing personal data in relation to an individual, the employer

Old law Prior to 26 May 2015: • in a creditors’ voluntary liquidation, the liquidator could only exercise the powers in Part I of Schedule 4 of the IA 1986 with the sanction of the court or the liquidation committee (or, if there is no such committee, a meeting of the company's creditors)—IA 1986, s 165(2)(b). This included the power to bring legal proceedings under IA 1986, ss 213, 214, 238, 239, 242, 243 or 423; IA 1986, Sch 4, para 3 • in a compulsory liquidation, the liquidator could only exercise the powers in Parts I and II of Schedule 4 of the IA 1986 with

If an individual falls within the definition of ‘worker’ set out in the Working Time Regulations 1998 (WTR 1998), SI 1998/1833, reg 2(1) (and does not fall within any of the relevant exclusions), they will be entitled to a total of 5.6 weeks’ annual leave each ‘leave year’, made up of: • a basic entitlement to a minimum of four weeks’ annual leave (20 days for a regular full-time worker) each leave year, implementing the right to annual leave under Directive 2003/88/EC, the Working Time Directive • an additional entitlement to 1.6 weeks’ annual leave (eight days for a regular full-time worker) each leave year, which is a right under domestic legislation only A worker is also entitled to be paid: • in respect of any period of statutory holiday • in lieu of any statutory holiday entitlement accrued but unused on termination of their employment See Practice Notes: • Eligibility

The short answer to this question is undoubtedly, yes. Pupils who are children of migrant workers from the EU and the European Economic Area (EEA) can attend a UK state school and have the same rights to education as British citizens. The EEA comprises all member states of the EU together with Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein. This right was initially set out in Council Directive 77/486/EEC of 25 July 1977 on the education of the children of migrant workers. Article 14 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which after the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, acquired binding status within the UK and all other EU countries is also of relevance. It provides: • Everyone has the right to education and to have access to vocational and continuing training. • This right includes the possibility to receive free compulsory education. • The freedom to found educational establishments with due respect for democratic

This Q&A considers the impact of UK’s pending withdrawal from the European Union, following the referendum held on the 23 June 2016, on EUTM (formally CTM) that have been in use for more than five years but only in the UK and therefore potentially liable for revocation pursuant to Art. 51.1(a) of the Council Regulation (EU) No 207/2009 as amended by Regulation (EU) No. 2015/2424 on the European Union Trade Mark (EUTM Regulation). The effect of 'Brexit' on the application of Art. 51.1(a) raises potentially complex legal issues, although it should be remembered that where any EUTM has only been used a single national jurisdiction within the EU for five years the proprietor could face a revocation challenge. The critical part of Art. 51.1(a) is unambiguous: '1. The rights of the proprietor of the EU trade mark shall be declared to be revoked on application

Purrunsing v A’Court & Co was an alarming case for conveyancers when it came out in April 2016. Both the buyer’s and the seller’s conveyancers were found liable (through different legal remedies) for a failure to adequately explore the seller’s entitlement to sell a property. It highlights the importance for all parties to consider the risk of fraud in a conveyance and to tailor their checks and advice accordingly. The case itself did not need to consider whether it was necessary to ask questions about a seller’s entitlement to sell. A cautious conveyancer would, however, take away from the case the lesson that some transactions require more due diligence than others. The facts of Purrunsing The

In Cameron v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd, Ms Cameron was injured when her car collided with a Nissan Micra. The driver of the Micra made off without stopping or reporting the accident to the police and has not been heard of since. The registered keeper of the Micra was not the driver. The registered keeper declined to identify the driver and has been convicted of failing to do so. The Micra was insured

What are the requirements of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996? Section 110(1) of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (HGCRA 1996), requires that every construction contract shall provide: • an ‘adequate mechanism’ for determining what payments become due under the contract, and when (ie the due date) (HGCRA 1996, s 110(1)(a)), and • a final date for payment in respect of any sum that becomes due (HGCRA 1996, s 110(1)(b)). HGCRA 1996, s 110(1) states that the parties are free to agree how long the period is between the due date and the final date Where a construction contract fails to meet either of these requirements, then the provisions of the Scheme for Construction Contracts

In the Sinclair Gardens Investments Co Ltd decision, the freeholder sought an indemnity against both past and future breaches of covenant. It made the point that no freeholder would willingly sell its interest without such an indemnity and that in an expropriatory situation, one ought to be included. The Leasehold Valuation Tribunal decided that it did not have jurisdiction to impose such a term. The Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (LRHUD 1993) makes detailed provision as to the terms of the conveyance by which the relevant interests are to be transferred. LRHUD 1993, s 34(9) is clear in stating that: “except to the extent that any departure is agreed to by the nominee purchaser and the person