We have assumed for the purposes of this Q&A that the deceased: • lived in the UK for 17 of the last 20 years, or • had their permanent home in the UK at any time in the last three years of their life Should neither of those apply it may be that the deceased will not be viewed as domiciled in the UK and other rules may

A special guardianship order (SGO) is a private law order provided by section 14A(1) of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) appointing one or more individuals to be the child’s special guardian or special guardians and provide them with parental responsibility for the child concerned. An SGO will only be available in respect of minor children (ChA 1989, ss 14A(1) and 105(1)). No specific provision is made for the duration of an SGO, but,

It is possible to apply for an Expansion Worker Sponsor Licence where the new company will be incorporated and a UK based individual will become a director of that company. It is assumed that all the other requirements of the Expansion Worker Sponsor Licence are met eg the company has no existing UK trading presence. See Practice Note: Sponsoring a UK Expansion Worker. The UK-based individual will usually be the Authorising Officer and first Level 1 user as per the guidance below. The

We refer you to Practice Note: EPAs—revocation and disclaimer. You will see from this Practice Note that the position re revocation and disclaimer is different depending on whether or not the Enduring Power of Attorney (EPA) has been registered. You will also see that there are different methods of terminating an EPA: revocation by the donor, disclaimer by the attorney and termination by operation of law. The law and procedure relating to these different methods are set out in the above Practice Note and, in further detail, in Commentary: Chapter 20 Revocation, Disclaimer and Termination of Enduring

Dividends must be paid in accordance with the rights attaching to a company’s shares. If one of two shareholders holds shares with dividend rights attached and the other holds shares which give no right to a dividend (eg, where there are two classes of shares in issue), then only the shareholder holding the shares with dividend rights attached will be entitled to receive any dividend declared. If, however, the two shareholders each hold shares with the same dividend rights attached, then they will both be entitled to receive any dividend declared, unless one shareholder waives that entitlement. It is, therefore, necessary to determine what dividend rights apply to a company’s shares by reviewing any documents that may set out such rights, eg, the company’s articles of association,

It is not necessary for a tenant to register its section 26 notice of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954, s 26) against the landlord’s title at HM Land Registry. The 1954 Act protected lease (and therefore the tenant’s rights under the 1954 Act) will either be registered at HM Land Registry

This Q&A deals with the question of whether it is possible to provide that one class of shares in a company shall carry enhanced voting rights. It also considers whether these voting rights can be expressed as a fixed percentage of the total voting rights, that will stay the same irrespective of the total number of shares in issue. We have limited this answer to cover Private Companies Limited by shares (with just a reference to listed entities). Section 284 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) provides that the shareholders of a company have

A security trustee will normally be appointed on a syndicated transaction to hold security on behalf of all the lenders from time to time. This avoids the need for security to be granted separately to each of the creditors, which can be expensive and time consuming. The borrower will execute the security in favour of the security trustee. The specific duties and functions of

A covenant is an agreement contained in a deed or simple agreement whereby the parties, or some or one of them, are or is bound to do or not to do a specified thing. Accordingly, it is valid (and therefore enforceable) as a contract between the parties to it. The mechanism of a restrictive covenant is usually employed so that the benefit and burden of a covenant may pass (or 'run') to the respective successors in title of the original contracting parties in relation to the land within their respective ownerships (and for present

Rule 21 judgment and reconsideration For information on the circumstances in which Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure set out in Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, SI 2013/1237, Sch 1 (ET Rules), may be invoked, see the section of Practice Note: No response, rejected response or claim not contested: employment tribunals entitled When rule 22 procedure applies. Under Rule 21(2), the Employment Judge will determine whether it is possible to issue a judgment in respect of the whole of a claim, or part of it. For a list of the kinds of judgment that may be issued, see the Presidential guidance on Rule 21 judgments, under the heading ‘Action by the Employment Judge’. Where an employment judge determines some or all of a claim under Rule 21(2) and issues a judgment, that judgment may be open to reconsideration under the procedure in Rules 70–73. On

We assume for the purposes of this question that: • both the buyer and seller are taxable persons and registered for value added tax (VAT) • VAT has been properly charged on the supply • no special schemes, such as cash accounting or the capital goods scheme, apply • no avoidance or abuse is being contemplated, and • the buyer otherwise meets the criteria to recover its input tax, eg the supply is not attributable to exempt supplies The definition of input VAT in section 24(1) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 (VATA 1994) includes

The key issue to consider is whether the misdescription of the company in the execution clause is a fundamental error which renders the deed void, or whether it is more in the nature of a clerical error which can be rectified. The parties must decide whether there could be any doubt that the deed is the instrument of the company, rather than that of another party. Apart from the incorrect name, it should also be established that the instrument does satisfy the criteria for a deed, and has been validly executed as a deed by the company. A further issue