The court can only accept or reject the local authority’s care plan and make a suitable order, or none, although before reaching that point it can adjourn the case and invite the local authority to reconsider its plan. In Re T (A Child) (Placement Order), Peter Jackson LJ said (at para [42]): ‘…the family court cannot dictate to the local authority what its care plan is to be, any more than it can dictate to any other party what their case should be. What the court can, however, expect from a local authority is a high level of respect for its assessments of risk and welfare, leading in almost every case

Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, 25.10 provides, inter alia, that a party may put written questions about an expert's report to an expert instructed by another party, or to a single joint expert appointed under FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, 25.11. Unless the court directs otherwise or a practice direction provides otherwise, written questions must be: • proportionate • put once only • put within ten days, beginning with the date on which the expert's report was served • for the purpose only of clarification of the report, and • copied and sent to the other parties at the same time as they are sent to the expert An expert's answers to questions must be given within

In public law children proceedings, the court is not bound by the children’s guardian’s view, but must give reasons for departing from it, see W v North Yorkshire County Council. That principle applies also in relation to interim orders, see A Local Authority v KAB, in which the guardian’s evidence did ‘not stand up to scrutiny’ (para [56]). The court must not simply accept the views of the children's guardian without conducting its own analysis, see Re N-D (children)

Section 105 of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) defines a child as ‘a person under the age of 18’. There is no prohibition on the court making a care order in relation to a child where the child’s mother also falls within the definition of a child, although the issue of conflicting best interests may arise. The usual requirements will need to be satisfied, ie in accordance with the threshold criteria as set out in ChA 1989, s 31(2), a court may only make a care or supervision order if it is satisfied that: • the child concerned is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm, and • the harm, or likelihood of harm, is attributable to the

This Q&A has assumed that the reference to a company acting as a introducer means acting as an introducer appointed representative (IAR) in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA 2000). See Practice Note: Appointed representatives, which provides an overview of how a firm (the Principal) that is authorised under FSMA 2000 shall appoint an appointed representative (AR), including an IAR. The Practice Note refers extensively

We have assumed that the question refers to a hypothetical winding-up petition presented as at the time of writing, and not at any earlier date. We therefore do not address the position in relation to a winding-up petition heard as at the time of writing, but having been presented prior to 1 October 2021. As is well-known, the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic prompted the passing of legislation which placed (and continues to place) restrictions on the presentation of winding-up petitions. Those restrictions are found in Schedule 10 to the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA 2020). So far as

The conditions for payment of a pension commencement lump sum (PCLS) are set out in section 166(2)(a) of the Finance Act 2004 (FA 2004), and FA 2004, Sch 29, para 1. In the context of considerations relating to a possible scheme transfer, the conditions particularly relevant to the payment of a PCLS are as follows: • association with member’s relevant pension—the PCLS must be connected to an arising entitlement to a ‘relevant pension’ benefit under the same registered pension scheme. Entitlement to a PCLS arises immediately before the entitlement to the relevant pension to which the lump sum is related [see FA 2004, s 166(2)(a), Sch 29, para 1(1)(aa) and 1(3)]]. The term ‘relevant pension’ includes income withdrawal, a lifetime annuity or a scheme pension. HMRC has confirmed that, for this purpose, a PCLS cannot be paid in connection with a pension

Unity of seisin An easement is extinguished where the freeholds of both the dominant and servient land come into the ownership of the same person. Note that common possession without common ownership or common ownership without common possession only serves to suspend the easement during the period of commonality and once this comes to an end the easement revives; see Encyclopaedia of Forms and Precedents: Extinguishment by unity of ownership and possession: Encyclopaedia of Forms & Precedents [2134]. LPA 1925, s 62 rights Under LPA 1925, s 62, a conveyance of land with buildings on it includes: • all ways, passages, lights, watercourses, liberties, privileges, easements, rights and advantages whatsoever

We refer you to the following passage from Munkman on Damages: The dependency is set at the date of death: Munkman on Damages for Personal Injuries and Death [21.1]. In assessing damages the claimants are not required, necessarily, to prove an actual loss. In Williams v Welsh Ambulance Services NHS Trust, the Court of Appeal was considering

The Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 (TP(RAI)A 2010) simplifies and modernises the procedure for third-party victims to seek compensation from an insurer where the insured has become insolvent or ceased to exist. It allows a claimant to claim an indemnity directly from a defendant’s liability insurer if the defendant becomes insolvent, which prevents any monies paid out by insurers in these circumstances from becoming an asset in the insolvent estate. One of the key aspects of TP(RAI)A 2010, compared with its 1930 predecessor, the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 1930 (TP(RAI)A 1930) (which

The date of the accident is potentially determinative of whether the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930 (TP(RAI)A 1930) or the new Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 (TP(RAI)A 2010) applies. Does the TP(RAI)A 2010 apply? TP(RAI)A 2010 will apply where a company incurred a liability (injury to the claimant from the accident) before 1 August 2016, but became insolvent on or after 1 August 2016. Therefore, if the insolvency of the defendant company started on or after 1 August 2016, the rights of that company ‘the relevant person’ pass to the injured

In relation to this Q&A, we have assumed that although this is a Scottish Will, it was made on the basis that the deceased did not intend for Scottish law to apply and so that the law of England and Wales applies. An executor's title is derived from the appointment made in the will by the testator. The testator may make the appointment conditional and may also provide for substitutes in certain circumstances. In the 1943 unreported case of Re Andreason (Not available in Lexis®Library), the testator provided that in the event of the appointed executor being out of the country, that executor could nominate someone to act in his place. However, unless the appointment made by the testator within the will contains a