The basic position is that employers—as the sponsors under Tier 2 and 5—take responsibility for the licensing and sponsorship processes, including their cost. While payment of the licence fee is not discussed in detail in the relevant Tiers 2 and 5 Sponsor Guidance, all available indicators are that it would be inappropriate for anyone other than the sponsor to fund sponsorship. Paragraph 2.3 of the guidance for sponsors lists the duties a prospective sponsor must perform when requesting a Tier 2 and/or 5 licence. This includes completing and sending the appropriate application documents, and the guidance also confirms: ‘You must… pay the correct fee…’. Paragraph 3.3 of the same guidance continues: ‘You must make the application yourself. A representative can help you

A third party, including another shareholder, may pay for shares in a company that are issued to someone else, provided that: • it is permitted by, and done in compliance

See the commentary in the ‘contributions’ subsection of Halsbury's Laws of England, available in the related documents to this Q&A, which explains that a highway authority may, if satisfied it will be of benefit to the public, enter into an agreement with any person: (1) for the execution by the authority of any works which the authority is or may be authorised to execute; or (2) for the execution by the authority of such works incorporating particular modifications, additions or features or at a particular time or in a particular manner, on terms that that person pays the whole or such part of the cost of the works as may be specified in or determined in accordance with the agreement. The Highways Act 1980, s 278 (HiA 1980) allows a highway authority that is improving the highway to enter into an agreement with a person who would obtain some special benefit from

Section 9 of the Wills Act 1837 (WA 1837) provides that a Will is not valid unless it is in writing, signed by the testator or by some other person in their presence and by their direction, and the signature is made or acknowledged by the testator in the presence of two or more witnesses present at the same time and each witness either attests and signs the Will or acknowledges his signature in the presence of the testator. Although the Law Commission on Electronic Execution of Documents (Law

This Q&A considers whether the provisions set out in Part 7A of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (ITEPA 2003) apply in a situation where a shareholder has left shares to an employee, former employee or prospective employee in a Will. Until such time as the effect of ITEPA 2003, Pt 7A is subject to a definitive court ruling, the question of whether leaving shares to an employee in a Will is likely to have disguised remuneration consequences is uncertain. There is no definitive answer to the question and each case will be likely to revolve around the specific factual matrix in which it accrues. What is the disguised remuneration regime? The current legislation surrounding disguised remuneration is to be found in the widely drafted provisions found in ITEPA 2003, Pt 7A. Given the breadth of the drafting, it is correct to say that the legislation applies to many types of arrangements concerning employees. ITEPA 2003, Pt 7A applies when

What is the section 273B statutory override? Section 273B of the Finance Act 2004 (FA 2004) gives trustees and managers of pension schemes providing defined contribution benefits the power to make specified payments including drawdown pension payments, short term annuity payments and uncrystallised funds pension lump sums despite any provision of the rules of their scheme (however framed) prohibiting the making of the payment. The power may be exercised without the need for employer consent. Why was section 273B introduced? FA 2004, s 273B was introduced in 2014 as part of the ‘pensions flexibilities’ changes to the pensions tax regime. These changes relaxed the restrictions around pension drawdown and allowed many more defined contribution scheme members to take money directly from their pension pot to fund their retirement, rather than having to buy an annuity. The policy behind the statutory override was to ensure as far as possible that individuals

A right of residence as the primary carer of a British citizen child under Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v Office national de l'emploi is not conferred by the free movement provisions of Directive 2004/38/EC, the Citizens’ Directive, but is instead a right derived from that child's possession of EU citizenship under Article 20 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Someone who has such a 'derivative right of residence' is not entitled to all of the benefits which flow from residence arising under the Directive 2004/38/EC, the Citizens’ Directive. For example, those who acquire a derivative right of residence cannot rely on their status as a basis for bringing other family members to the UK under the Directive 2004/38/EC, the Citizens’ Directive and the UK's implementing Regulations (save in the specific case of certain dependants); nor can they acquire permanent residence in the UK. Social security entitlement could, arguably, have been available to the holder

Exceptions to Rent Act protection There are a number of piecemeal exceptions to the security of tenure provisions of the Rent Act 1977 (RA 1977). Most of the important exceptions provide that certain types of tenancy, such as lettings by resident landlords, fall totally outside the scheme of the Rent Acts. In certain other situations a landlord is entitled to a court order for possession as of right. For convenience, a checklist of the various exclusions is set out in summary form below: The following are subject to total exclusion: • rateable value of dwelling in excess of specified limits • rent is less than two-thirds of rateable value • shared ownership leases • lettings to students

For further information relating to this topic generally, see: • National minimum wage—Eligibility • Employment-related statutory rates and limits table • Minimum wage compliance checklist • Deductions from wages Some of the statutory exceptions to the right to be paid the national minimum wage are identified below. This answer focuses on the more common situations where this issue arises. Workers only Only ‘workers’ are entitled to be paid the national minimum wage—see our Practice Note: Worker status—Definition of 'worker'. Agency workers who would otherwise not fall within the definition of a ‘worker’ because they do not have a contract with either the person supplying them or with the person to whom they are supplied are also entitled to be paid the national minimum wage. Home workers who would not otherwise be ‘workers’ due to a lack of personal obligation in the contract to do the work themselves, are also entitled to be paid the national minimum wage. The genuinely self-employed are not entitled to be paid

Since 6 April 2007, sections 212 to 215 of the Housing Act 2004 (HA 2004) impose statutory duties on any landlord of an assured shorthold tenant who takes a deposit. The landlord must: • deal with the deposit in accordance with the requirements of one of two types of tenancy deposit schemes, and • provide the tenant with prescribed information For these purposes, a deposit is defined as any money (in the form of cash or otherwise) intended to be held by the landlord (or otherwise) as security either

See Practice Note: Quantifying damages for dependants—past losses—financial dependency. This Practice Note considers the various elements of a financial dependency claim for past losses.

For the purposes of this Q&A, we have assumed the rent deposit is in relation to a commercial property. The rent deposit deed A rent deposit is a sum of money that is deposited by a tenant when it takes a lease of premises as security against the non-payment of rent and other breaches of the lease. The money is held on the terms of the rent deposit deed. Rent deposit deeds provide landlords with immediate access to funds in the event that the tenant is in breach of the lease. In many cases the definition of liabilities under the deed extends to the costs of enforcement. The rent deposit deed will state exactly when the landlord is entitled to draw on the deposit. Such circumstances usually include where there are: • outstanding amounts due under the lease ie for rent, insurance, service charge • sums due for losses or costs