To some extent the answer to this Q&A will depend on the remuneration clause in the Will, and the circumstances of the case. The general rule remains that an executor or trustee should act gratuitously and so any remuneration must be expressly authorised. In case of doubt therefore a charging clause is likely to be interpreted against the interests of the person seeking remuneration. The second edition of the STEP standard provisions states that: ‘A trustee acting in a professional capacity is entitled to receive reasonable remuneration…’. Acting in a professional capacity is defined as ‘Acting in the course of a profession or business that consists of or includes the provision of services in connection with the management or administration of Trusts’. Under this clause a fully-retired professional would not be able to charge for acting, but there would be scope for a semi-retired professional to charge if

Centre of main interests (COMI) COMI is an important concept under the EU Recast Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings (Regulation (EU) 2015/848) (Recast Regulation on Insolvency) as it dictates where the main insolvency proceedings against a company should be opened and prevents concurrent main proceedings being opened elsewhere. Following the end of the implementation period, the key parts relating to automatic recognition fall away for the UK. The Recast Regulation on Insolvency proceedings is being ‘on-shored’ under the Insolvency (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 201, SI 2019/146. For further information, see Practice Note: Brexit—impact on Recast Regulation on Insolvency. This explains that the concept of COMI is being retained under the on-shoring regulations in order to ensure there is no narrowing of the jurisdiction of the English courts. In summary, if the debtor’s COMI is in the UK, if

There are two key features of deeds that distinguish them from simple contracts: • deeds are enforceable irrespective of the lack of consideration (in contrast with simple contracts, which are formed pursuant to the contract law principle that requires valuable consideration to be given for the promises being made), and • the limitation period for claims made in connection with deeds is 12 years (compared

Aside from conditionality, or recording works to be carried out, an agreement for lease is required where the landlord and tenant cannot enter immediately into the lease itself, but need to know that the other party

For premises to fall within the section 79(1)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 as being in such a state as to be prejudicial to health, there must be some feature in the premises that is itself prejudicial. It is only the condition of the premises that can constitute a nuisance and not the use of the premises. An unsatisfactory arrangement of rooms not in themselves insanitary does not fall within the provision: Birmingham

The Bradford Factor (also known as the Bradford Index, Bradford Formula or Bradford Scale) allows employers to highlight persistent, short-term absence by applying an extra weighting to the number of absences. It is usually used as a tracking tool, or to trigger steps under a sickness and absence policy. For further information on an employer contemplating the dismissal of an employee because of persistent, short-term absence, using the Bradford Factor as a way of measuring that absence, see Practice Note: Dealing with persistent, intermittent, short-term absences—Initial considerations. Acas identifies the Bradford index and the ‘lost time rate’ as the two most common ways of measuring absence. The Precedent policy: Policy and procedure—sickness and attendance, together with the accompanying drafting notes, envisages that an employer

Disability is defined in section 6(1) of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010) as any physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on a person's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. For more information on the meaning of disability under EqA 2010, s 6(1), see Practice Note: Disability. We

Section 1(1)(d) of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (I(PFD)A 1975) states that an applicant within this category is not a child of the deceased but a child who was treated by the deceased as a child of the family in the context of: • a marriage • a civil partnership, or • any family in which the deceased at any time stood in the role of a parent Prior to 1 October 2014, when the Inheritance and Trustees’ Powers Act 2014 (ITPA 2014) came into force, this section only covered a child treated by the deceased as a child of the family in the context of a marriage or civil partnership and this remains the case where the deceased died before 1 October 2014. This disenfranchised a child who was treated as

In order to terminate a business tenancy to which the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954) applies, a landlord may give a notice under LTA 1954, s 25. Similarly, a tenant may give a notice under LTA 1954, s 26 to terminate their own tenancy. A notice given by or to the wrong person will be invalid. It is therefore crucial to identify the correct landlord, usually referred to as the ‘competent landlord’. For the purposes of LTA 1954, ‘landlord’ is defined in LTA 1954, s 44(1). Importantly, it is not necessarily a tenant’s immediate landlord. Rather,

In answering this Q&A, we have assumed an injury was caused by the impact of the two vehicles in the loading bay. We have been unable to find any case law on the specific point raised in this Q&A; however, the following information from the Lexis+ UK Practical Guidance Personal Injury module may be useful when considering this question. Ex turpi causa In the scenario outlined, it is possible that the claimant’s parking in a loading bay may constitute an illegal activity. If the claimant was involved in an illegal activity which is closely connected to the claimant’s own illegal conduct, the defendant may have a complete defence to any claim brought against them (Gray v Thames Trains). This defence is commonly known as ‘ex turpi causa non oritur actio', 'no cause of action may be founded on an illegal act',

Seat belts Rule 99 of the Highway Code requires passengers to wear seat belts when travelling in a van if one is fitted. There are some limited exceptions including for those making deliveries or collections in goods vehicles when travelling less than 50 m. Highway Code, r 100 requires a driver to ensure that all children under the age of 14 in a van wear seat belts or sit in an approved child restraint where required. The statutory requirement to wear seat belts is now contained within the Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts) (Amendment) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/1892. Driver’s duty of care to passengers A driver owes a duty of care to their passengers to use reasonable care and skill. For further guidance, see Practice Note: Pedestrians, children and passengers involved in road traffic accidents and commentary: Duty to passengers: Bingham & Berrymans' Personal Injury and Motor Claims Cases

This Q&A refers to housing co-operative. It also assumes that the tenancy is a short-term tenancy. The case of Vine Housing Co-Operative Ltd v Smith may be useful. This case concerned a tenancy which included the condition that a tenant ‘shall be a member of the Co-operative throughout the tenancy and will comply with the Co-operative policies and regulations and abide by the terms of the Co-operative Membership Policy/Agreement. The Tenant shall also comply