A section 106 agreement is a contract entered into under statutory powers pursuant to section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. It must be entered into by deed. It is, nonetheless, a contract between parties and the terms of the contract will govern both the payment and repayment of financial contributions. A developer has no statutory right to repayment of section 106 contributions, so it must be specifically negotiated as a term of the contract. A section 106 agreement will usually include two principal obligations on a local planning authority (LPA) to repay contributions. These are as follows: • in circumstances where the planning permission has been quashed, revoked, modified or varied (except with the developer’s consent), or has expired prior to implementation/commencement • if the contribution has not been

The costs of the detailed assessment proceedings The costs of detailed assessment proceedings will usually be summarily assessed at the conclusion of those proceedings (Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR 47.20(5)) however, in an exceptional case these costs may also be subject to detailed assessment (see The Senior Courts Costs Office Guide, para 13.1(c)). Where the paying party has put the receiving party to the task of justifying the costs claimed before a court, the presumption is they will be responsible for the costs of having done so. The court can, of course, make a different order (CPR 47.20(1)(b)). There is no express provision providing that the general procedure for summary assessment applies

One-directional indemnities or mutual clause It will depend on the circumstances of each individual transaction as to whether a one-directional indemnity or a mutual clause is desirable or appropriate. It will also depend upon the attitudes of the respective client as to the allocation of potential liabilities

The planning system is focussed upon the works to be carried out not their reason, so if engineering or other operations are required to remove Japanese knotweed—and this may well be the case given the

As our Practice Note: Software escrow mentions, the use of escrow in software licensing deals is not particularly common in comparison to the number of transactions that take place in the market. Although there are no statistics readily available, it is likely that the use of escrow specifically in relation to software as a service (SaaS) is even less common. What are the potential issues with SaaS escrow? There are a number of reasons why uptake of SaaS escrow may not be high, including the following: • Cost: One of the main incentives for a customer to use a cloud solution such as SaaS is that it is often cheaper than on-premise software and can be scaled up or down according to need. The use of a SaaS escrow will involve the payment of a one-off or a recurring fee (or both) to the escrow agent which may negate some of the financial benefits of switching to SaaS in the first place • Complexity: Although the vast majority of escrow providers

Actions against directors can come from various sources, including: • the company—a director’s statutory duties are owed to the company pursuant to the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006), s 170(1). The company (acting via its board of directors) is therefore the proper claimant in any such action for breach of a director’s statutory duties, as it has been historically in respect of a director’s fiduciary duties • the company’s shareholders—the interests of a company are typically aligned with those of its membership. If a shareholder wishes for action to be taken in respect of a director’s breach, perhaps in circumstances where the other directors have indicated a reluctance to commence a claim on behalf of the company against one of their fellow directors, the shareholder can pursue a derivative action. • the company’s creditors—when a company is insolvent, or close to insolvency, it becomes incumbent on a director to consider the company’s interests as being

Pursuant to section 88 of the Localism Act 2011 (LA 2011), a piece of land or property in a local authority's area can be listed as an asset of community value (ACV) if in the opinion of the authority— '(a) an actual current use of the building or other land that is not an ancillary use furthers the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community, and (b) it is realistic to think that there can continue to be non-ancillary use of the building or other land which will further (whether or not in the same way) the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community.' The effect of a property being listed as an ACV is that when that listed asset comes up for sale, a moratorium on the sale of up to six months may

The current SRA Standards and Regulations (STaR) are silent as to whether a solicitor is entitled to contact the client of opposing solicitors in any circumstances, though to do so runs the risk of a breach of paragraph 1.2 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs: '1.2 You do not abuse your position by taking unfair advantage of clients or others.' In contrast, the Bar Standards Board and the Law Society of Scotland are explicit that a barrister or Scottish solicitor should not contact the client of another solicitor or legal representative directly. The Bar Code of Conduct gC24 states: '…where the other side is legally represented and you are conducting correspondence in respect of the particular matter, you are expected to correspond at all times with that other party’s legal representative –otherwise you may be regarded as breaching CD3 or Rule C9.2' Paragraph 8 of the Law Society of Scotland Standards of Conduct states: '8. Relations between

Under Rule 34 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 (ET Rules 2013) an employment tribunal may add a person as a new party to proceedings, or substitute an existing party with a new person (ie replace an existing party by making a person a party to proceedings who was not previously a party) if it appears that: • there are issues between that person and any of the existing parties, and • those issues fall within the jurisdiction of the tribunal, and • it is in the interests of justice to have determined in the proceedings The tribunal also has power to remove any party apparently wrongly included. The tribunal may make an order for addition, substitution or removal of a party: • on its own initiative, or • on the application

Under section 16 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005), the Court of Protection has power to make one-off decisions on behalf of a person lacking capacity to make the decision (P) or, alternatively, to appoint a deputy for property and affairs or for health and welfare to make such decisions on behalf of P. MCA 2005, s 17(1)(a) states that the court’s powers under MCA 2005, s 16 extend in particular to making decisions as to where P is to live. An application to the Court of Protection

Companies and their advisers can ask Shares and Assets Valuation (SAV) at HMRC to agree the value of shares for the purposes of planned grants under tax advantaged enterprise management incentives (EMI) schemes, company share option plans (CSOPs), share incentive plans (SIPs) and save as you earn (SAYE) schemes. However, since 31 March 2016 SAV no longer provides pre-transaction rulings on valuation in other cases, although it may be requested to do so in exceptional circumstances where a substantial number of employees is involved. In the case of CSOPs, SAYE schemes and SIPs, it is normally the case that the market value of unquoted shares will be negotiated with SAV before the relevant options or awards are granted, although there may be occasions where the valuations do not need to be agreed with SAV, provided that an agreed formula has been followed. For EMI schemes, there is no statutory requirement

Family analysis: Mai-Ling Savage, barrister at Garden Court Chambers, examines the issues in the case of Re B and another (Change of Names: Parental Responsibility: Evidence), which included an application by the mother to change her children’s names and a prohibited steps order restricting the father’s ability to exercise his parental responsibility.