Payments into court are now made in only limited circumstances. These may include: • following an infant settlement • where some protection is required either on behalf of a child or protected party • following a conditional court order As is the case in all litigation, the payment into court is no longer used specifically as a tactical measure relating to costs under the CPR 36 regime. Infant and protected party settlements Once the settlement is approved, the court has an obligation under CPR 21.11(2) to give directions as to how the damages are to be dealt with. In the past, the usual course of action was for the court to invest it in the special investment account at the Court Funds Office (CFO). While this is still advisable in cases where some protection is required against the incompetence or dishonesty on the part of litigation friends or legal representatives, this will tend to be the exception. See Practice Note: Claims involving a child—investment of damages. Where the settlement is small (ie under £5,000),

A charge made by payphone operator to compensate for freephone calls from payphones to cover the costs of running and maintaining its payphones. It is charged to third parties who use freephone numbers originating on payphones. The payphone operator makes a corresponding internal charge.

Payroll refers to the processes, records and calculations by which an employer determines, withholds, reports and pays employees’ wages, salaries and associated statutory deductions. In legal practice, it commonly arises in employment law, tax, social security and corporate transactions (for example, in due diligence and TUPE/transfer of undertakings exercises).The term “payroll” itself is descriptive rather than a defined statutory concept in the UK or Ireland, but its components are governed by detailed legislation, including income tax, Pay As You Earn (PAYE), National Insurance contributions (UK), Pay Related Social Insurance (PRSI) (Ireland), statutory sick pay, statutory maternity and other family leave payments, national minimum wage/living wage compliance, auto‑enrolment pensions and real time information (RTI) reporting.Payroll records are legally significant for demonstrating compliance with employment contracts, working time rules, holiday pay, equal pay and discrimination laws, and for evidencing liabilities on corporate acquisitions.Usage and core legal obligations are broadly consistent across England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, subject to differing tax and social security regimes, minimum wage rates, enforcement bodies and statutory payment schemes in each jurisdiction.

Payroll taxes are compulsory deductions from employment income payable to the tax authority by an employer, usually when operating PAYE or an equivalent withholding system. In legal practice, the term is descriptive rather than a defined statutory concept, and is used to refer collectively to income tax withheld at source and associated social security contributions.In the UK (England & Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland), payroll taxes typically include income tax deducted under PAYE, employee and employer Class 1 National Insurance contributions, and (where relevant) apprenticeship levy and student loan deductions. These obligations arise under primary tax and social security legislation and detailed HMRC regulations, with the employer generally treated as the “secondary contributor” and responsible for correct calculation, deduction, remittance and reporting.In Ireland, payroll taxes usually refer to PAYE income tax, USC, PRSI (employee and employer) and LPT deductions, administered by Revenue under PAYE modernisation rules.For employment, tax, corporate and insolvency practitioners, payroll taxes are central to advising on employment structuring, compliance, due diligence, TUPE/business transfers, director and personal liability exposure, and HMRC/Revenue audits, penalties and settlement negotiations.

A method of forfeiture where the landlord physically re-enters the premises by manifesting its intention to forfeit the lease, usually by changing the locks.

IP analysis: This case concerns competing fruiterers, and two exotic varieties of pears trade marked ‘Mountain Pear’ and ‘Yu Lu Frangrant Pear’. The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court found in favour of the trade mark proprietor, Wang Zeng International Ltd (WZI), against Bing Bing Foods Ltd and its sole director Mr Bingtao Wang, who admitted using identical marks for identical goods without consent. The defendants claimed that the marks were merely descriptive pear variety names and should be declared invalid. The court dismissed the defendants' wide-ranging but lightly-argued invalidity counterclaims under sections 3(1)(b), (c), and (d), section 46(1)(c), and section 3(6) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (TMA 1994), finding that the marks were validly registered. The claimant was entitled to a declaration of infringement and injunctive relief against Bing Bing and Mr Bingtao Wang, who was found jointly liable, while the claim against the company secretary Mr Sohi was dismissed. Written by Sam Fisher, associate at CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP.

Pearn Kandola has undertaken a comprehensive study on age discrimination in UK workplaces, highlighting its prevalence and impact across age groups. The Age Discrimination at Work 2024 report commissioned by business psychology consultants Pearn Kandola found that:

CASE HUB (ARCHIVE 06/01/2016) ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the abandonment of the transaction on 6 January 2016; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline UK merger investigation into the anticipated acquisition by Pearson Professional Assessments Limited of learndirect Limited’s computer-based testing business. The transaction involves horizontal overlap in the market for post-school (16+) invigilated computer-based testing services. Latest developments On 6 January 2016, the CMA formally cancelled its phase 2 investigation into the anticipated acquisition following the parties announcement (and the CMA receiving assurances from the parties) that they had abandoned the transaction. Parties Pearson Professional Assessments Limited (Pearson VUE) is owned by Pearson PLC, a UK-based publishing and education company headquartered in London . It is listed on the London Stock Exchange with a secondary listing on the New York Stock Exchange. Pearson VUE operates the computer-based training division for Pearson in over 150 countries throughout the world. learndirect Limited is a UK business owned by the private equity group

The offence of obtaining a pecuniary advantage, contrary to the Theft Act 1968 (TA 1968), s 16 was repealed by the Fraud Act 2006, but without affecting any liability, investigation, legal proceedings or penalty for or in respect of any offence partly committed before 15 January 2007 (see SI 2006/3200).

A legacy of money, including an annuity.

[I give to [name of charity] charity registration number [insert number] of [address] the sum of £[insert amount] [and I express the wish (but without imposing any obligation) that the money be used for [insert full details] and declare that the receipt in writing of the treasurer of that charity shall be a sufficient discharge to my Executors]. OR I give to the following charities the sums set opposite their names and declare that the receipt of the person who professes to be the treasurer or other proper officer for the time being of the institution shall in each case be a sufficient discharge to my trustees: To [name of first charity] charity registration number [insert number] of [address] the sum of £[insert amount] To [name of second charity] charity registration

Certain categories of claimant are considered more vulnerable than others. Included in this category are: • pedestrians • children • passengers The introductory section of the Highway Code includes rules H1 to H3 outlining the ‘hierarchy of road users’. This hierarchy puts pedestrians who are most at risk in the event of a collision at the top of the hierarchy. Children are particularly vulnerable to injury in road collisions and require particular care from other road users. Those driving vehicles that can cause the greatest harm bear the greatest responsibility to take care and reduce the danger they pose to others (ie drivers of large goods and passenger vehicles, vans/minibuses, cars/taxis and motorcycles). Cyclists, horse riders and drivers of horse-drawn vehicles similarly have a responsibility to reduce danger to pedestrians. Pedestrians Guidance for pedestrians is contained in the Highway Code, rr 1–35. Rule 7 repeats the Green Cross Code. Drivers carry a significant responsibility on the road, given that they are operating vehicles capable of causing serious harm.