This Practice Note considers unlawful indirect discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010). There is a clear difference between direct and indirect discrimination, and the two are mutually exclusive (although claims may of course be brought in the alternative): • the law prohibiting direct discrimination aims to achieve formal equality of treatment: there must be no less favourable treatment between otherwise similarly situated people on grounds of a protected characteristic • the law prohibiting indirect discrimination looks beyond formal equality towards a more substantive equality of results: criteria which appear neutral on their face may have a disproportionately adverse impact upon people of a particular protected characteristic The main difference between the two is that indirect discrimination can be justified if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim; direct discrimination cannot be justified, except in the case of age. For information on direct discrimination generally, see Practice Note: Direct discrimination. In the context of the protected characteristic of sex, examples of indirect discrimination might include: • an employer specifying that all workers must be

Indirect effect is a legal doctrine developed by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) requiring national courts to interpret as far as possible national law in conformity with EU law provisions.

What is indirect effect of EU law? The doctrine of indirect effect, or consistent interpretation, is a duty that national courts have, as part of the Member State responsible for fulfilment of EU obligations, to interpret national law in light of EU law, especially with Directives. It achieves indirectly, via judicial interpretation of national law, the result obtainable through direct effect of Directives where that principle cannot be applied. The principle was developed by the Court of Justice in Von Colson and its scope was widened in Marleasing. It is also a means to counteract, at least partially, the negative effects of the non-recognition of horizontal direct effect of Directives. For background reading, see Practice Note: Direct effect of EU law. The Von Colson case was a referral for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions. The national litigation concerned alleged discrimination suffered by qualified social workers

An indirect demerger'>statutory demerger is slightly more complex than the direct route as it requires a tripartite agreement under which a dividend consisting of either a subsidiary or business assets is paid to another company, and shares are issued by that company to the shareholders of the target company.

Indistinctly applicable measures refer to national trading rules which apply to imports and domestic goods equally in law, but might discriminate against the imports in practice.

Through the Finance Act 2014, the government introduced two allowance protection regimes to accompany the reduction in the lifetime allowance from £1.5m to £1.25m on 6 April 2014: • the fixed protection 2014 (FP 2014)—for further information, see Practice Note: Fixed protection 2014 (FP 2014), and • the individual protection 2014 (IP 2014), which is the subject of this Practice Note The original aim of IP 2014 (like FP 2014) was to offer transitional protection to individuals who might have already built up pension savings in the expectation that the standard lifetime allowance would remain at least at £1.5m. While the lifetime allowance was abolished with effect from 6 April 2024, IP 2014 continues to provide some transitional protection in terms of an individual’s entitlement to (i) the lump sum allowance, (ii) the lump sum and death benefit allowance, and (iii) a tax-free lump sum. For further information, see What is IP 2014?, below. Unlike FP 2014, individuals benefiting from IP 2014 have been able to continue to accrue benefits without losing the benefit of

THIS PRACTICE NOTE RELATES TO REGISTERED PENSION SCHEMES Through the Finance Act 2016 (FA 2016), the government introduced two allowance protection regimes to accompany the reduction in the lifetime allowance from £1.25m to £1m on 6 April 2016: • the fixed protection 2016 (FP 2016)—for further information, see Practice Note: Fixed protection 2016 (FP 2016), and • the individual protection 2016 (IP 2016), which is the subject of this Practice Note The original aim of IP 2016 (like FP 2016) was to offer transitional protection to individuals who might have already built up pension savings in the expectation that the standard lifetime allowance would remain at least at £1.25m. While the lifetime allowance was abolished with effect from 6 April 2024, IP 2016 continues to provide some transitional protection in terms of an individual’s entitlement to (i) the lump sum allowance, (ii) the lump sum and death benefit allowance, and (iii) a tax-free lump sum. For further information, see The benefits of individual protection 2016, below. Unlike FP 2016, individuals benefiting

An alternative to bankruptcy whereby a debtor enters into a binding arrangement with his creditors to compromise his debts.

The directors of a company must prepare accounts for each of its financial years, unless the company falls within the dormant companies exemption in CA 2006, s 394A.

A design shall be considered to have individual character if the overall impression it produces on the informed user differs from the overall impression produced on such a user by the prior art.

Individual concern is a condition of standing for non-privileged applicants in an application of annulment and requires that the applicants can be distinguished from other persons.

In general terms a director may be an individual or a corporate body, but under the CA 2006 at least one of the directors of any company must be a natural person. Note that once CA 2006, ss 156A–156B come into force, all directors will need to be natural persons, subject to any specific exemptions that the Secretary of State may set out. See also corporate director.