This Practice Note provides an introductory guide to the moratorium process contained in Part A1 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) including who is eligible to apply, how the moratorium may be commenced, what action may be taken during the moratorium by the monitor or directors and how to extend or exit the moratorium. Part A1 provides for an insolvency process whereby directors of insolvent companies, or companies that are likely to become insolvent, can obtain an initial 20 business day moratorium period. This process is designed to allow viable businesses time to restructure or seek new investment free from creditor action. The moratorium is overseen by an insolvency practitioner acting as a ‘monitor’, although the directors will remain in charge of running the business on a day-to-day basis (known as a ‘debtor-in-possession’ process with the company being the ‘debtor’) subject to certain constraints. The intention is to provide a streamlined procedure that keeps administrative burdens and costs to a minimum and makes the process as quick as possible. What are the eligibility criteria? A

Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (referred to in the accompanying Statutory Guidance as 'Part 2A') sets out the contaminated land remediation regime for England and Wales.

The collective term for the Listing Rules, Prospectus Rules, Transparency Rules and corporate governance rules which refers to the Part of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 under which they were made.

This Practice Note provides an introduction to motor insurance, uninsured motorists and untraced drivers, making sense of Part VI of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA 1988) and the Motor Insurers Bureau’s (MIB) Uninsured and Untraced Drivers Agreements. Introduction to Road Traffic Act 1988 and Motor Insurers Bureau Motor insurance in the UK is a surprisingly complicated topic. In mainland Europe, a vehicle’s owner simply insures the vehicle, and the insurer indemnifies any driver who drives with the owner’s permission. In the UK, insurers insure only particular drivers, and then only for particular purposes. RTA 1988 provides for compulsory third-party motor insurance, and a statutory scheme setting out the circumstances in which an insurer will pay damages to an injured person. It implements what is now the Directive 2009/103/EC, Sixth Motor Insurance Directive (the Directive). The MIB is a private body, comprising all of the UK’s motor insurers. It acts as an ‘insurer of last resort’, and can be called on to satisfy a judgment against a driver

Background As noted in Practice Note: Insurance business transfer schemes, a regime for transferring portfolios of insurance business has existed in the UK since the enactment of the Insurance Companies Act 1982 (repealed). Insurance business transfer schemes are now governed by Part VII of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA 2000), which came into force in December 2001. Since the introduction of FSMA 2000, Pt VII, banking businesses in the UK have also been capable of being transferred by court order. A banking business transfer scheme under FSMA 2000, Pt VII provides a process by which a bank may transfer the whole or part of its business, subject to compliance with prescribed conditions, without obtaining the consent of individual customers. Transactions qualifying as a Part VII banking business transfer Proposed transfers of banking business only fall within the scope of FSMA 2000, Pt VII (a Part VII banking business transfer) if the whole or part of the business to be transferred includes the regulated business of accepting deposits and one of the following

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The court approved a Part VII insurance business transfer consolidating intra-group non-life run-off business. The Court of Appeal’s guidance in Re Prudential Assurance Co Ltd, emphasising that the approach to approval will depend on the nature of the business being transferred, was followed. Earlier life insurance authorities, such as Re London Life and Re Axa Equity, were not applied. An important issue was the recognition of the scheme in the USA, as some transferring policies were governed by US law. The court confirmed that ‘certainty’ of foreign recognition is unnecessary, but credible evidence of likely recognition is required. That evidence should be compliant with CPR 35 and should be provided especially where recognition is uncertain or is critical to the effectiveness of the scheme. Although independent expert evidence on US law was not provided, the court accepted the evidence before it, albeit with reservations. Written by Ololade Saromi, barrister at Five Paper.

An exemption which enables professional firms regulated by designated professional bodies to carry on exempt regulated activities.

Land Registry documents Where a conveyance is silent on the question of who is responsible for maintaining a fence, the plans which are registered at the Land Registry may not be of assistance. However, if the plans are in fact marked up to show ownership of the fence, that will usually establish who is responsible for maintaining it. Generally, on a plan at the Land Registry, a fence will be marked either with a letter ‘T’ or a letter ‘H’. Where the fence is marked with a letter ‘T’, the fence will usually belong to the party on whose side of the fence the letter ‘T’ appears. Therefore, that party is likely to be the owner of the fence and therefore the person responsible for maintaining

This Q&A assumes that title to the property (including the roadway) is registered. Determining the boundaries of a registered property (including its vertical boundaries) involves careful consideration of all title documents relating to that property, including the title register and title plan. It can also involve consideration of relevant common law presumptions or statutory provisions. The following general guidance may assist you. General vertical boundary presumption It is presumed that ownership extends vertically up to the sky and down to the centre of the earth (or at least as far as it is physically possible to go), although this can be rebutted by agreement or statute or common law. See Practice Note:

The Bounty of Queen Anne for the Augmentation of the Maintenance of the Poor Clergy (Queen Anne’s Bounty) was established in 1704 following the enactment of the Queen Anne’s Bounty Act 1703. The Act gave the revenues of ‘first fruits’ and ‘tenths’ for the support of the poor clergy of England. It was repealed in its entirety by the Charities Act 1960, having been modified by various other Acts of Parliament prior to that time. The bounty money was usually used to purchase land, the income from which augmented

The apportionment of part of the purchase price of a residential property in Wales to fixtures, fittings, and contents will reduce the amount of land transaction tax (LTT) payable on completion. This is because LTT is only chargeable on the consideration attributable to the land transaction itself, which includes the land and any fixtures (items affixed to the property). Fittings and contents, being chattels, are not considered part of the land

Pensions analysis: The claimant, a part-time reservist, brought a complaint under the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 alleging he had been treated less favourably than a full-time regular soldier as respects (a) for pension purposes, his service prior to 1 April 2015 and (b) his daily rate of pay. The Employment Tribunal found in the claimant’s favour. The Advocate-General for Scotland appealed, contending that the claimant was not a ‘worker’ within the Regulations, his daily rate of pay did not constitute less favourable treatment and his treatment as respects pay and prior service was not on the ground that he was a part-time worker. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) dismissed the appeal, holding that the tribunal below had not erred in law. The case applies the recognised principles for determining whether a person without an employment contract is a ‘worker’ to the new context of the armed forces. It is potentially relevant to all armed forces reservists. Written by Elizabeth Ovey, barrister at Radcliffe Chambers.