It is assumed that the trust in question is discretionary and that no one has an interest in possession in the income thereof. Accumulation is the conversion of income into capital. In order for income to be effectively accumulated the following criteria must be satisfied: • there must be a power or trust to accumulate conferred either by the trust instrument or by the Trustee Act 1925 (TA 1925) (or possibly at common law—see Lombe v Stoughton (1841) 12 Sim 304 (not reported by LexisNexis®). There is statutory authority to accumulate income from funds held for a beneficiary who is a minor to the extent that the income is not applied for his maintenance (TA 1925, s 31) (see below). There is no general statutory authority conferred on trustees to accumulate (Re Gourju’s Will Trusts, Starling v Custodian of Enemy Property at para [34])

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (CHSR 2017), SI 2017/1012, reg 105 states that: ‘(1) Where a land use plan— (a) is likely to have a significant effect on a European site or a European offshore marine site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects), and (b) is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site, the plan-making authority for that plan must, before the plan is given effect, make an appropriate assessment of the implications for the site in view of that site's conservation objectives.’ CHSR 2017, SI 2017/1012, reg 111 defines ‘land use plan’ as including neighbourhood development plans (NDPs). The process by which the requirement under CHSR 2017,

Under the enterprise management incentives (EMI) legislation, there is no obligation to register the scheme with HMRC until such time as the first EMI option(s) have been granted under it (see paragraph 44 of Schedule 5, Part 7 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 and HMRC guidance at ETASSUM56010). However, in practical terms, the EMI scheme can be considered to ‘exist’ as soon as it has been formally adopted by the company in accordance with its constitution—regardless of whether options have been granted under it. Typically, an EMI scheme will only need board approval in

The limitation period imposed by section 5 of Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980) stipulates that any claim for breach of contract must be brought within six years from the date of breach of where the contract is a simple contract. Time runs from the date of breach rather than the occurrence

In conducting our research we have made assumptions that A owes money to B and focussed on when, in this scenario, A’s payment obligation to B is discharged and whether (i) B’s delay in cashing the cheque makes a difference and (ii) whether the timing of discharge of A’s obligation is different where A has tendered payment by way of electronic transfer of money, such as an internet instruction by A to his bank to pay the sum to B. Tender In most cases, A is freed from liability for non-performance of a contract if he makes an unconditional tender or offer of performance in accordance with the terms of his promise and B refuses to accept performance, provided that the tender is made under such circumstances that the other party has a reasonable opportunity

Limitation period for contract The normal limitation period for an action based on a breach of contract is six years: section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980). This six-year period starts on the date on which the cause of action ‘accrued’. This is the date when the claimant could first possibly bring an action for that breach of contract against the defendant. In a claim based on a breach of contract, time runs from when the defendant breaches that contract: Gibbs v Guild. LA 1980, s 6 lifts the six year time limit in respect of certain loans if: • a contract of loan does not provide for repayment of the debt on or before a fixed or determinable date, and • does not effectively

A worker is entitled to be paid in respect of any period of annual leave (and additional annual leave) at the rate of a week's pay in respect of each week of leave (regulation 16(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 (WTR 1998), SI 1998/1833 (WTR 1998, SI 1998/1833, reg 16(1)). The method of calculating a week’s pay will depend on whether the employee works normal working hours (sections 221–223 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996)) or not (ERA 1996, s 224). For further information, see Practice Note: Holiday pay—Calculating statutory holiday pay: general. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Robinson-Steele v RD Retail Services has emphasised that the purpose of the requirement for paid annual leave is to put the worker, during annual leave, in a position which is, as regards remuneration, 'comparable to periods of work'. Therefore, 'workers must receive their normal remuneration for that period of rest', and not any reduced

A zero hours employee or worker who has an over-arching or 'umbrella' contract with their employer will accrue holiday entitlement during the whole of the time that contract is in existence, whether or not they are actually doing work under it. In relation to holiday taken, the employee or worker must be paid at the rate of a week's pay for each week of leave. The sections of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996) regarding a week's pay apply for the purposes of calculating a week's pay for each week of leave, subject to modifications contained in the Working Time Regulations 1998, SI 1998/1833, reg 16(3). As a zero hours employee or worker will have no normal

We assume you refer to the situation when it is necessary to consider whether it is preferable for the personal representatives (PRs) to sell a property from the estate or whether it should first be appropriated to the beneficiaries to be sold by them. This may arise in any of the following situations: • the beneficiary(ies) has/have part or all of their capital gains tax (CGT) annual exemption available • the beneficiary(ies) will pay CGT at 18% on any part of a gain • the beneficiary(ies) has/have losses available to offset against any gain • the sale will make a loss and the PRs will not be making any further disposals that may produce gains to utilise the loss Death is not usually an occasion of charge to CGT. The PRs are deemed to acquire the assets at market value at the date of death; in effect, all previous accrued gains are wiped out and the

Pursuant to CPR 3.1(2)(i), the court has the power to order ‘a separate trial of any issue’ that arises during proceedings. Such a split trial will often occur in proceedings relating to commercial or construction disputes, particularly to deal with issues of liability before considering quantum. Part 36 offers In the context of Part 36 offers, as indicated in Practice Note: Part 36 offers—split trial cases, a case is 'decided' and proceedings are deemed to end when all issues in the case have been determined, whether at one or more trials. Issues with Part 36 offers and split trials in the context of awarding costs was highlighted in Ted Baker v AXA, where a Part 36 offer had been made which did not contain specific provision to cover the situation of split trials. At the conclusion of the trial

This Q&A focuses on the full resumption of the directors' powers following an exit from administrative receivership. We also briefly touched on residual powers of the company’s directors during the currency of the administrative receivership. This Q&A does not set out the position relating to a liquidation exit or an administration order. Under the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), an administrative receiver refers to: • a receiver or manager of the whole (or substantially the whole) of a company's property appointed by or on behalf of the holders of any debentures of the company secured either by a charge, which, as created, was a floating charge or by such a charge and one or more other securities, or • a person who would be such a receiver or manager but for the appointment of some other person as the receiver of part of the company's property See: Introduction: Gore-Browne on Companies [1]. Position of directors during administrative receivership The appointment of an administrative receiver

The parties are required to set out agreement/disagreement in a costs budget discussion report (Costs Precedent R). CPR 3.13(2) requires that report to be filed either when directed