An independent contractor is a person or entity engaged to provide services who is in business on their own account, rather than being an employee or worker of the client. In legal practice across England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, the term is descriptive rather than formally defined in a single statute, and its meaning is developed primarily through employment, tax and vicarious liability case law.Key features commonly indicating independent contractor status include: control over how and when work is done; ability to substitute another person; provision of own equipment; exposure to financial risk and opportunity for profit; and invoicing for services rather than receiving salary through PAYE. Labelling someone as an “independent contractor” in a contract is not conclusive; tribunals and courts will look at the true nature of the relationship.The classification has major consequences for employment law rights (such as unfair dismissal, redundancy, holiday pay), tax treatment (including PAYE, PRSI and NICs), pension and social welfare status, and liability in tort/delict. Usage and underlying tests are broadly consistent across the UK and Ireland, though specific statutory frameworks and leading authorities differ by jurisdiction.

A board of directors is an independent executive when its members are aware that the property it is asked to buy is the promoter's property and that they are competent and intelligent as to whether the transaction ought to proceed to completion, and that they are capable of exercising intelligent, independent and impartial judgment on the transaction.

IP analysis: In a David vs Goliath battle in the arena of fast fashion, independent fashion designer Sonia Edwards lost her claim online fast fashion giant, Boohoo.com and related companies over the alleged infringement of unregistered design rights in Edwards’ garment designs. The outcome in this case illustrates the narrow scope of unregistered design protection and the challenges of relying on unregistered designs to protect garment designs against the churn of the fast fashion industry. Written by Marc Linsner senior associate at Bristows LLP

This Practice Note focuses on the FCA requirement for workplace personal pension schemes to establish an independent governance committee (IGC), set out at COBS 19.5. For more general information about the governance requirements applicable to workplace personal pension schemes, see Practice Note: Governance requirements applicable to DC workplace pension schemes—Governance requirements for workplace personal pension schemes. What is an IGC? Since 6 April 2015, certain pension providers regulated by the FCA have been required to have in place a governing body known as an IGC, although in limited circumstances an alternative governing body known as a governance advisory arrangement (GAA) may replace an IGC. For further information on GAAs, see Alternative arrangements to IGCs—governance advisory arrangements (GAAs), below. IGCs operate independently of the provider and are intended to perform a role similar to trustees of occupational pension schemes. Indeed, an IGC is designed to represent the interests of the following persons so that they benefit from independent review of their investments by the IGC: • since 6 April 2015, active and deferred members of relevant personal pension schemes,

An authorised person who advises on investments from a whole of market perspective and offers clients the choice of paying for advice by way of fee or commission.

Undue influence In a scenario where an individual provides security for the benefit of a third-party debtor, there can be a presumption of undue influence in certain circumstances—for more information as to when the presumption applies, see Practice Note: Taking a guarantee or third party security from an individual—undue influence. Following the House of Lords decision in Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge (No 2), the Law Society developed guidelines that solicitors advising security providers should follow in order to protect themselves from negligence claims. The judgment itself also clarified how a lender can protect itself against third-party security being set aside in a circumstance where there is potentially undue influence. Checklist for a lender taking third-party security from an individual In order to rebut the presumption of undue influence (see above), the lender needs to show that the security provider understood the transaction and made an informed decision to grant the

Dear [insert name of client] This letter confirms the advice that [I OR we] gave you at our meeting on [insert date] in respect of the proposal that your [freehold OR leasehold] property known as [insert property details] (the Property) is to be mortgaged to [insert name of lender] (the Lender) to secure a loan from the Lender to [insert name of borrower] (the Borrower). The Lender requires that you are given this advice so that, if you sign [the mortgage [and related documents] OR a consent to mortgage] you will not be able to claim afterwards that you are not legally bound by [it OR them]. 1 The Property is owned [in your sole name OR in the Borrower's sole name OR in the joint names of yourself and [insert name]] and you [both] will be required to sign [the mortgage [and related documents] OR a consent to mortgage] in favour of the Lender. 2 Enclosed is a copy of the form of mortgage

Note that this Practice Note addresses only English law. Following devolution there are now differences between the English and Welsh rules on many aspects of the regulations regarding the appointment of independent mental capacity advocates. Independent mental capacity advocates (IMCAs) were created by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005). Their purpose is to assist local authorities and the National Health Service (NHS) with regard to persons over 16 without mental capacity where a decision that will have a significant impact on their health and welfare or long-term care and accommodation is required. The independent mental capacity advocate service The service provided by an IMCA is only designed for those circumstances where a person has no-one else able to support them and put forward their wishes, rights and needs. In order to properly implement their appointment the provisions of MCA 2005 are supplemented by: • MCA 2005 (Independent Mental Capacity Advocates) (General) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/1832 • MCA 2005 (Independent Mental Capacity Advocates) (Expansion of Role) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/2883 • the MCA 2005 Code of Practice, chapter 10 • a guidance

The UKCG Code includes non-exhaustive criteria in Provision 10 to determine whether a non-executive director may be viewed as independent. At least half the board, excluding the chair, should comprise non-executive directors determined by the board to be independent.

A payphone run by a private individual or organisation and located on private premises. Public access to these is determined by the private renter/owner of the payphone who also sets the tariff and collects the revenues.

Corporate Crime analysis: In October 2023, the Home Office appointed Jonathan Fisher KC to undertake an independent review of Disclosure and Fraud offences. Fisher published his preliminary findings on Part 1: Disclosure on 24 April 2024. John Binns and April O’Neill of BCL Solicitors LLP consider the key areas of focus for the review of disclosure as highlighted in the preliminary report, which of these are the most controversial and why and which areas will have the most impact for criminal practitioners.

This Practice Note discusses the legal framework in England and Wales that governs reviews and appeals from school exclusions. It covers the legal framework of Independent Review Panels (IRPs) and their membership, together with the procedure, the hearing and the evidence required. It also discussed judicial review principles and human rights considerations. Legal framework England—Independent Review Panels (IRPs) Statutory basis The statutory framework on school discipline and exclusion mostly runs in parallel with the common law, with relevant statutory authorities including section 51A of the Education Act 2002 (EA 2002) (as inserted by section 4 of the Education Act 2011). The School Discipline (Pupil Exclusions and Reviews) (England) Regulations 2012 (School Discipline Regulations 2012), SI 2012/1033 (as amended regularly, most recently by the School Discipline (Pupil Exclusions and Reviews) (England) (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2023, SI 2023/571) extends EA 2002, s 51A to academies and free schools. The statutory framework applies to maintained schools, academies, free schools and pupil referral units (PRUs). Statutory guidance The Secretary of State's