Permitted development rights for loft extensions in England are found in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (GPDO), SI 2015/596, Sch 2 Pt 1, Class B. Like most permitted development rights, the right to extend the loft of a dwellinghouse is subject to a number of limitations and conditions. This includes that any part of the dwellinghouse cannot, as a result of the works, extend beyond the plane of any existing roof slope which forms the principal elevation of

For information on maternity leave generally, see Practice Note: Maternity leave. For information on maternity pay, see Practice Note: Maternity pay. Maternity leave Pregnant employees are entitled to 52 weeks of maternity leave, regardless of their length of service or their working hours. The 52 weeks is comprised of: • ordinary maternity leave (OML)—lasts for up to 26 weeks and can start at any point from eleven weeks before the baby is due (or earlier if the baby is born early) • additional maternity leave (AML)—lasts for up to 26 weeks and begins the day after the employee’s final day of OML • compulsory maternity leave (CML)—required by Directive 92/85/EEC, CML forbids employers from allowing employees who are entitled to OML to work for two weeks from the day on which the baby is born There is no express provision in the relevant legislation (ie Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996) or Maternity

The Housing Act 1985 (HA 1985) makes provision, among other things, for the right to buy (governed by HA 1985, Pt V). HA 1985, s 139 provides that: (i) a conveyance of the freehold executed in pursuance of the right to buy must conform with HA 1985, Sch 6 Pts I and II, and (ii) a grant of a lease similarly executed must conform with HA 1985, Sch 6 Pt I, Sch 6 Pt III (with HA 1985, Sch 6 Pt IV having effect in relation to certain charges). The effect of the grant to the tenant of an estate in fee simple, or of a lease, pursuant to HA 1985, Pt V brings the

The provisions of section 37 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) (and the Civil Partnership Act 2004 equivalent) apply only to proceedings under MCA 1973, however the remedy of a freezing order (Mareva) is available in relation to wider proceedings. The jurisdiction for the making of a freezing order is provided by section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (SCA 1981), which derives as a hybrid creation partly from the inherent

The court has a general power to control the evidence that it hears and reads (see Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, 22.1). These powers extend to excluding evidence which would otherwise be admissible (FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, 22.1(2)). FPR 2010, PD 22A sets out various requirements for the format and contents of witness statements, including in relation to exhibits, but there is no specific provision relating to what documents or other evidence can and cannot be exhibited (save, eg court documents, which prove themselves). In

In private law proceedings, where it is alleged or admitted, or there is other reason to believe, that the child or a party has experienced domestic abuse perpetrated by another party, or there is a risk of such abuse, the Family Court must have regard to the provisions of PD 12J of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, revised in October 2017. ‘Domestic abuse’ is widely defined. The court must at all stages of the proceedings consider whether domestic abuse is raised as an issue and must then consider the relevance of the allegations and if appropriate give directions to enable contested relevant

We refer you to the following which you may find useful for your purposes. • Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes (2000) 5 JIBFL 168 As the above article discusses, many instruments which are called a promissory note fail to meet the statutory criteria for being a promissory note eg because there is a floating rate of interest or other payment obligation which makes the amount to be paid by the obligor not a sum certain. See section 83 of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 (BEA 1882). If any provision of the instrument takes the instrument outside of the definition of

Where an employee succeeds in a claim for unfair dismissal in which the tribunal accepts that the principal reason the employee was dismissed was because they made a protected disclosure, they will (with one exceptional feature—see below) be entitled to remedies according to all the usual principles which apply in any unfair dismissal claim, namely: • reinstatement or re-engagement • a basic award • a compensatory award For further information in relation to these remedies generally, see Practice Note: Unfair dismissal remedies—general. Where making a protected disclosure is the reason or principal reason for an employee's dismissal, the dismissal will be automatically unfair (see Practice Note: Automatically unfair dismissal). A key exceptional feature of remedies in whistleblowing unfair dismissal claims is that there is no statutory cap for the compensatory award (see Practice Note: The unfair dismissal compensatory award). Where a tribunal

It is common in an administration scenario for the directors of the company in administration (Oldco) to make an offer to the administrator to purchase the business and assets of the Oldco. The directors may wish to buy Oldco's trading name because of the goodwill attached to it. The purchasing entity (Newco) may then trade under that name, or a similar name. However, in the interests of fairness and transparency, the re-use of the name is regulated to protect third parties dealing with Newco who might otherwise think they are trading with Oldco. This is the philosophy underpinning section 216 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986). IA 1986, s 216 makes it an offence for a director or

Section 44(1)(b) of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 reads: • ‘A worker employed by a charity, a voluntary organisation, an associated fund-raising body or a statutory body does not qualify for the national minimum wage in respect of that employment if he receives, and under the terms of his employment (apart from this Act) is entitled to,— ◦ no monetary payments of any description, or no monetary payments except in respect of expenses— ‣ actually incurred in the performance of his

Section 97(2) of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) prohibits the publication of any material which is intended, or is likely, to identify any child involved in any proceedings under ChA 1989, or an address or school as being that of a child involved in such proceedings. The prohibition is not an absolute prohibition. The case of Clayton v Clayton remains an authority in confirming that the prohibition under ChA 1989, s 97(2) comes to an end once proceedings conclude. However, as noted by Sir Mark Potter P at para [78] of the judgment in Clayton: ‘The fact that the provisions of s.97(2) of the 1989

Prohibition of public offers by private company (Companies Act 2006, Part 20, Chapter 1) Under the section 755(1) of the Companies Act (CA 2006), a private limited company must not: • offer to the public any securities (ie shares or debentures) of the company, or • allot or agree to allot any securities of the company with a view to their being offered to the public Furthermore, CA 2006, s 755(2) confirms that, unless proved otherwise, an allotment or agreement to allot securities will be presumed to be made with a view to their being offered to the public if an offer of the securities (or any of them) to the public is made: • within six months after the allotment or agreement to allot, or • before the receipt by the company of the whole of the consideration to be received by it in respect of the securities CA 2006, s 755 will not be contravened where a private company either: • acts