The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR), SI 2013/1471 sets out a scheme by which various deaths, injuries and occupational diseases which occur in the workplace are to be reported to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). The purpose of RIDDOR is to enable the HSE to ascertain where and how risks arise in the workplace and whether they need to be investigated. With certain limited exceptions, health and safety legislation applies to all ‘employers’ and ‘undertakings’ regardless of where work is conducted. As employers and undertakings have sought to follow Government guidance on ‘Guidance for employers and businesses on coronavirus (COVID-19)’, many people have now been instructed to work from home wherever possible. For these people, the home has now become the ‘workplace’—health and safety legislation continues to apply to those working from home. For the purpose of this Q&A, in order to be reportable under RIDDOR the incident must be: • a ‘work-related accident

Section 18F of the Corporation Tax Act 2009 (CTA 2009) allows a UK-resident company to make an irrevocable election excluding from its corporation tax base any profits and losses (including capital gains and losses) attributable to a non-UK ‘permanent establishment’ of that company. CTA 2009, ss 18A–18F set out in some detail the profits and losses which are to be excluded in this way. For further information,

Under section 18(7) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (ETA 1996), anything communicated to an Acas conciliation officer in connection with the performance of the officer’s functions under ETA 1996, ss 18A–18C is not admissible in evidence in tribunal proceedings, except with the consent of the person who communicated it to the officer. ETA 1996, s 18(7) is not intended to render inadmissible evidence which could have been given if there had been no communication

CPR 21.10 requires the court’s approval for any ‘settlement, compromise or payment’ to be valid. There is no specific mention of discontinuance in any of the rules in CPR Part 21, or CPR PD 21. This issue was considered by Keith J in Sayers

CPR 32.18 provides: ‘(1) A party may serve notice on another party requiring him to admit the facts, or the part of the case of the serving party, specified in the notice. (2) A notice to admit facts must be served no later than 21 days before the trial. (3)

A claim form can only be served outside England and Wales without the court’s permission if the provisions in CPR 6.33 are met. Those rules do not apply

This Q&A refers you to Practice Note: Regulated activities for debt management firms and not-for-profit bodies. In this Practice Note, you will note that the regulated activity of debt collecting under Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001 (RAO), SI 2001/544, art

Demolition of a holding We refer you to Practice Note: Summary of landlord's grounds of opposition and, in particular Practice Note: Grounds of opposition: ground (f)—demolition, construction, reconstruction and substantial works. In order to successfully oppose the grant of a new lease under ground (f), the landlord needs to show that on the termination of the current tenancy they intends, and has a reasonable prospect of being able, to: • demolish or reconstruct the premises comprised in the holding or a substantial part of those premises, or • carry out substantial work of construction on the holding or part thereof and that they cannot not reasonably do so without obtaining possession of the holding. Under section 31A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954), where a landlord opposes the renewal of a business tenancy on ground (f) (intention to demolish or reconstruct the premises)

As confirmed in Practice Note: The EU Settlement Scheme—the eligibility requirements under Appendix EU, joining family members include those who were existing family members of an EEA citizen who falls within the scope of the EU Settlement Scheme, but who were not themselves resident in the UK, before the specified date (11 pm UK time on 31 December 2020 (IP completion day)). Where a family member is a joining family member, the EEA citizen sponsor is referred to in the terminology of the EU Settlement Scheme as the ‘relevant sponsor’. The relevant sections of the definition for ‘dependent parent’ in Annex 1 Definitions to the Immigration Rules, Appendix EU (which concerns applications for leave to enter, which will be open to EEA citizens with a valid passport (or biometric national ID card) or to non-EEA citizens with a biometric EEA residence card) are emphasised in bold in the extract below: ‘…(a)

In order to answer this question, it is necessary to consider: • whether the intra-group reorganisation amounts to a relevant transfer under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment Regulations) 2006 (TUPE 2006), SI 2006/246, ie it is either: (a) a business transfer or (b) a change of service provider, and, if so: ◦ the effect on employees ◦ what information and consultation obligations apply, and whether elections are required For information on TUPE 2006, SI 2006/246 generally, see: TUPE and asset purchases—overview. On an intra-group reorganisation, a relevant transfer under TUPE 2006, SI 2006/246 may take place: • where the business of one group company is transferred to another in an intra-group business transfer • where a share sale is accompanied by a TUPE transfer (because assets are moved around to make sure everything is in the right place before the share sale) or

Contractual notices by email Electronic communications An electronic communication can take a variety of forms. In section 15(1) of the Electronic Communications Act 2000, it means a communication transmitted—(a) by means of an electronic communication network, or (b) by other means, but while in an electronic form. The expression includes email, social media, telephone, text, facsimile, and websites. If a contract states that notice can be given by electronic communication, this is not restricted to notice by email. Construction of electronic communication clauses The courts will interpret notice clauses very strictly as the parties have selected the chosen method of communication under the contract. In the Canadian case of Kanitz v Rogers Cable Inc (2002) 21 BLR (3rd) 104 (not reported by LexisNexis®) at [32], the court stated that parties who choose to conduct their business electronically must bear the risks of doing so. In that case,