In order for a dismissal to be fair: • the employer must show a potentially fair reason for dismissal (eg conduct), and • the employer must have acted reasonably in treating that reason as a sufficient reason for dismissing the employee, ie it must have followed a fair procedure For further information, see Practice Notes: • Reason for dismissal—general • Reason for dismissal—conduct • Procedural fairness The test to be applied in deciding whether or not a dismissal for misconduct was fair will be whether: • the employer had a genuine belief in the employee's guilt • that belief was formed on reasonable grounds • the employer carried out a reasonable investigation For further information, see Practice Notes: • Reason for dismissal—conduct, and in particular the section ‘Fairness of dismissal’ • Dismissing fairly for conduct reasons • Managing conduct The

The case of Clarise Properties Ltd v Rees and Another concerned an application for permission to appeal a decision of the Upper Tribunal Lands Chamber, itself on appeal from a decision of the Land and Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) for the Wales Rent Assessment Committee. The main issue on this application was whether the second appeal test set out in the Appeals from the Upper Tribunal to the Court of Appeal Order 2008, SI 2008/2834 (the 2008

The question The executors cannot yet apply for the full grant of probate because they do not at this stage have full details of the assets in order to produce the IHT421 or IHT 205. The question is whether the executors can apply for a grant ad colligenda bona in order to progress the house sale. The position of the executors The executors are under a duty to collect in the real and personal estate of the deceased and administer it according to law: see section 25 of the Administration of Estates Act 1925. This process is generally carried out within the executors year, namely, one year from the death, which is a general rule allowing a year for the executor to gather information about the debts and assets of the estate and distribute the estate according to the terms of the Will. If the executors require authority to effect transactions

It would be strange choice to make an application for pre-action disclosure under CPR 31.16 of documents which would be obtained on an inventory and account, where there exists a strong claim by beneficiaries for that. Where the beneficiaries have asked for that inventory and account in correspondence, and been unreasonably

Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, 9.24 gives the court power to order any party to deliver up possession of land, including any interest in land or any right over land, to any person following the making of an order for sale under section 24A of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. Given the inevitable interference with the occupier’s rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, it is likely to be an order of last resort, requiring clear evidence of frustration of the sale and in circumstances where no lesser order is likely to secure compliance with the order for sale. No specific method of application is prescribed by the rule. FPR

The requirements for bringing dependent children under the simplified routes, such as for skilled worker visas, are examined in more detail in the Practice Note: Children of work, investment and study migrants. For some routes the dependent child must be the child of the lead applicant and some routes permit the lead applicant’s dependent partner to also sponsor their children (see ‘Children from previous relationships’ in the Dependent family members in work routes caseworker guidance. For immigration routes (apart from Ukraine Scheme applications), step-parents are not automatically treated as parents. The definition of ‘parent’ in Immigration Rules, para 6.2 states that a step-father

Under section 283A of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), a trustee in bankruptcy (trustee) is required to take the steps set out in that section in respect of a property caught by that section, within three years of the date the bankruptcy order was made. Should a trustee not take such steps, their interest in the property will automatically re-vest in the bankrupt. It is therefore important for a trustee to make the appropriate diary entries to ensure that their interest does not re-vest in the bankrupt in error. For further reading, see Practice Note: The 'three-year rule' in bankruptcy under section 283A of the Insolvency

Section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 (IA 1971) serves to automatically extend leave where an in-time application is made to vary leave before the initial period of leave expires. Leave is then extended until a decision is made on the variation application. The full provision runs as follows: ‘3C Continuation of leave pending variation decision (1)This section applies if— (a)a person who has limited leave to enter or remain in the

Lawful arrest—human rights The right to liberty is a fundamental principle of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998), which itself gives effect to the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (see Practice Note: An introduction to the Human Rights Act 1998). The exercise of the power of arrest is a significant interference with that right. If a person is detained unlawfully it is a trespass to the person and constitutes false imprisonment. The lawfulness of an arrest is based on strict statutory criteria. Lawful arrest—the test This test is one of necessity and requires two elements: • a person's involvement or suspected involvement in the commission of a crime, and • reasonable grounds for believing that an arrest is necessary Reasonable belief Under section 24(1)(c) and (d) Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 1984), an officer may arrest, without warrant, anyone who they have reasonable grounds for suspecting to be about to commit an offence or to be committing an offence. Under PACE 1984, s 24(2), if an officer has reasonable

Part 5 of the Localism Act 2011 (LA 2011) (LA 2011, ss 72–108) enacted various provisions relating to community empowerment. This included, by Chapter 3 of the LA 2011, a requirement that a local authority maintain a list of land in its area that is land of community value. Such land is a building or other land in the local authority’s area which in its opinion its actual current use furthers the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community, and it is realistic to think that there can continue to be non-ancillary use which will so further those interests; or it was such in the recent past and it is realistic to think that within the next five years there could be again. Pursuant to LA 2011, s 95, a person who is an owner of land included in a local authority’s list of assets of community value must not enter

The Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 (LT(C)A 1995) provides that any lease granted on or after 1 January 1996 creates what is defined as a ‘new tenancy’ (with certain exceptions). A lease granted before 1 January 1996 is classed as an ‘old tenancy’. Transmission of burden of covenant to assignee The assignee is liable for those tenant covenants that touch and concern the land for as long as the lease remains vested in the assignee (privity of estate). Its liability does not appear to extend to breaches which took place prior to the assignment, ie the assignee’s liability: ‘extends to breaches of covenants which touch and concern the land committed by a transferee of the reversion while he holds the reversion and by an assignee of the

Under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE 2006), SI 2006/246, reg 15 an employment tribunal may make an award against the transferor or transferee employer if they have failed to inform and consult in accordance with their obligations under TUPE 2006, SI 2006/246, regs 13 or 14. For more information, see the section of Practice Note: TUPE—information and consultation entitled ‘Failure to inform and consult’. We are not aware of any HMRC guidance or case law specifically relating to tax treatment of an award for failure to inform and consult under TUPE 2006, SI 2006/246, reg 15. It is possible that an award under TUPE 2006, SI 2006/246, reg 15 could be seen as analogous to a protective award for failure to inform and consult in respect of collective redundancies under sections 188–192 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULR(C)A 1992). In Mimtec v Inland Revenue Commissioners, the Special Commissioner decided that a protective