STOP PRESS: A revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework was published on 17 August 2026. This content is being reviewed in light of the revised version. The policy background In 2012, the original version of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012 NPPF) came into force in England. It required local planning authorities (LPAs) inter alia to plan to meet ‘full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing’ in their areas. They were to: ‘use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area, as far as is consistent with the policies set out in this Framework, including identifying key sites which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the plan period…’ This was itself a significant shift in policy (previously there had been no requirement to objectively assess needs arising with a view to planning to meet them). The intention of this shift was to

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: A shareholder who was seeking to benefit from guarantee-stripping as part of a connected party’s company voluntary arrangement (CVA) proposal had failed to provide sufficient information to creditors to enable them to make a reasonable judgment as to whether the CVA was in their commercial interest or not. The shareholder’s estimated outcome statement (Shareholder EOS) failed to disclose numerous asset disposals in the months prior to the CVA proposal. The court held that the irregularity was the ‘…failure to advert at all to potential challenges to antecedent transactions in the Shareholder EOS’. The judge concluded (at para [79]) that ‘…disclosure of at least the dividend transaction and the Mizen Build transaction would have been relevant and significant’. This was material as the recovery of those antecedent transactions would significantly increase the indicated return to creditors in the Shareholder EOS and those increases were likely to have meant the vote would have been different. Written by Andrew Mace, barrister at 9 Stone Buildings.

Private Client analysis: Mr Justice Poole clarified the approach to be taken towards provision of position statements and skeleton arguments to public observers in the Court of Protection in proceedings covered by a Transparency Order. He laid down a relatively comprehensive set of guidelines both as to substance and procedure. The principles in Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd v Dring [2019] UKSC 38; [2020] AC 629 are to the fore. Provision of position statements promotes the open justice principle, especially in a time when it may be difficult for an observer to understand court proceedings without them. This must be balanced against any countervailing factors, for example risk of harm and proportionality. Written by Adam Stewart-Wallace, barrister at Ten Old Square.

General Where the assets of a registered or unregistered company (to include a partnership) in liquidation are insufficient to enable it to pay its debts and liabilities as well as the expenses of the liquidation, the contributories may be called upon to help make up the deficiency insofar as they have a liability to do so. Contributories are generally the present members of the company but may also include the past members of the company. In most cases, a shareholder contributory will be the holder of a fully paid up share (it being established that the holder of a fully paid up share is a contributory). A person who holds only the beneficial interest in shares, and who is not registered as a member of the company in question, may still be a contributory. If there is the possibility of a dividend paid or payable to contributories from surplus assets in the liquidation, a contributory is entitled to be included on the list of contributories.

The transposition of EU Directives is the process by which EU Member States give effect to Directives within their own domestic legal system. EU Directives differ from EU Treaty provisions and EU Regulations which have direct applicability in EU law. Directives must be implemented by Member States using appropriate implementing measures either through primary or secondary legislation. Directives are issued by the Council of the EU, jointly by the Council with the European Parliament or by the European Commission. Directives are the most appropriate method of legislating when Member States’ existing domestic law needs to be modified. Implementation of a Directive into the domestic law of the Member States fulfils the purpose of ensuring the full availability of the corresponding rights and obligations to EU citizens. Directives are binding as to their effect, meaning that Member States can choose the form of implementation, but cannot alter the content of the Directive itself. Member States are also under an obligation to implement the Directive by the deadline provided. Obligation

Part XII of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA 2000) requires controllers and proposed controllers to seek approval from the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) or the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) before acquiring or increasing control in a UK authorised firm, and to notify the relevant regulator when decreasing or ceasing control in a firm. This Practice Note provides an overview of the obligations of controllers and proposed controllers to notify and obtain approval from the appropriate regulator before acquiring or increasing control in a UK authorised firm. The PRA requirements are set out in the Change in Control Part of the PRA Rulebook, and the FCA requirements are set out in Chapter 11 of the Supervision manual in the FCA Handbook (SUP 11). A summary of the FCA notification requirements is provided in SUP 11 Annex 1G. For practical steps that controllers and proposed controllers need to consider when acquiring or increasing control, see Change in control process—checklist. The Acquisitions Directive (Directive 2007/44/EC) established a harmonised framework for the prudential assessment

Part XII of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA 2000) requires controllers and proposed controllers to seek approval from the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) or the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) before acquiring or increasing control in a UK authorised firm, and to notify the relevant regulator when decreasing or ceasing control in a firm. This Practice Note provides an overview of the obligations of controllers to notify the appropriate regulator when decreasing or ceasing control in a UK authorised firm. The PRA requirements are set out in the Change in Control Part of the PRA Rulebook, and the FCA requirements are set out in Chapter 11 of the Supervision manual in the FCA Handbook (SUP 11). A summary of the FCA notification requirements is provided in SUP 11 Annex 1G. For practical steps that controllers need to consider when disposing or decreasing control, see: Change in control process—checklist. For more information on the key concepts of the controllers regime, including the concepts of ‘control’, ‘controller’ and ‘change in control’, see Practice

Reporting money laundering under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002) The Money Laundering Regulations Businesses regulated by the Money Laundering Regulations 2007, SI 2007/2157 (MLRs) must take steps to identify any activity they suspect to be linked to money laundering or terrorist financing. Money laundering is the process by which the proceeds of crime are converted into assets which appear to have a legitimate origin in order that they can be retained permanently or recycled into further criminal enterprises. All businesses that are covered by the regulations have to put in place suitable anti-money laundering controls. For more information on the MLRs, see Practice Note: The anti-money laundering regime. The UK anti-money laundering regime, as it applies to regulated entities, is governed mainly by the MLRs and by requirements found in the Senior Management Arrangements, Systems and Controls Sourcebook (SYSC) within the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) Handbook. HM Treasury is responsible for the MLRs and for appointing supervisors to review and implement their

This Practice Note covers obligatory disqualification from driving under the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (RTOA 1988). In particular it deals with offences which require obligatory driving disqualification, the duration of mandatory disqualification from driving, extended periods of disqualification, reduced disqualification for attendance on an approved rehabilitation course, disqualification until passing of an extended driving test, exceptions to obligatory disqualification, the impact of a second conviction on obligatory disqualification and the notice of appeal in cases involving obligatory disqualification. It also provides a link to the Sentencing Council’s overarching guidelines on driver disqualification. Offences which require obligatory disqualification Offences which carry obligatory disqualification are set out in RTOA 1988, Sch 2 Pts I and II. These include: • causing death by dangerous driving • dangerous driving • causing death by careless driving • aggravated vehicle-taking • driving or attempting to drive when unfit • driving with excess alcohol, and • causing death or serious injury by driving while disqualified The Sentencing Council has published overarching guidelines which consolidate all existing guidance on driver disqualification.

Obscene publication offence Publication and distribution of obscene material is prohibited under the Obscene Publications Act 1959 (OPA 1959). The Act was implemented: • to amend the law relating to the publication of obscene matter • to provide for the protection of literature, and • to strengthen the law concerning pornography The limitation period is two years so no prosecution can be brought more than two years after the commission of the offence. OPA 1959 criminalises the actions of any person who, whether for gain or not, publishes an obscene article. The prohibition extends to a person who has an obscene article for publication for profit, whether this is to profit themselves or another. When considering a prosecutorial decision, regard should be had to the CPS Legal Guidance on Obscene publication. Aberrations from those guidelines may amount to an actionable abuse. Test of obscenity 'Publishes' is widely construed and means distributes, circulates, sells, lets or hires, gives or lends or offers for sale, offers to lend or offers to hire. In the circumstances that the article

The fundamental public right upon a highway is to pass and re-pass, and the obstruction of a highway can also be a criminal offence as well as a tort. Highway authorities are under a statutory duty to prevent, so far as possible, the stopping up or obstruction of highways in their areas. Criminal offence of obstruction The wilful obstruction of a highway without lawful excuse is one of several criminal offences. The range of lawful excuses would include statutory powers to plant trees in highways, to put up barriers within highways or to put gates across them. It would also cover a situation where a landowner had dedicated a highway subject to a restriction allowing what would otherwise be an obstruction, such as a pre-existing bridge or overhanging building. A third type of lawful excuse might be evident when a frontager exercises lawful rights to use the highway for access to their premises, including the occasional use of scaffolding. For a full examination of criminal offences relating to the highway see Practice Note: Local authority powers to

Private Client analysis: The Grand Court of the Cayman Islands has granted Beddoe relief to a trustee, in circumstances where a successful third party claim would have exhausted the trust assets. Rachael Reynolds, partner, and Shaun Maloney, associate at Ogier, examine the case of X (as Trustee of the A Trust) v Y (as Beneficiary of the A Trust) (unreported) 15 March 2017, Smellie CJ and assess the extent to which the decision will be persuasive in other jurisdictions.