Private Client analysis: The long-awaited decision in Guest v Guest has been handed down. Many had hoped it would clarify the somewhat higgledly-piggledly law in this area and provide a user-friendly rubric for practitioners. The question arises: has that been achieved? On one analysis the answer is simple—yes it has. What was once described by Lord Justice Lewison in Davies v Davies as the ‘lively controversy’ about the essential aim of the exercise when the courts assess remedies in proprietary estoppel cases has now been put to bed. In fact Lord Briggs, who wrote the majority judgment in Guest, perhaps goes even further and denies that the controversy should ever have been thought ‘lively’ in the first place. In essence, the aim of the remedy is, in Lord Briggs’ words, ‘to remedy unconscionability mainly by satisfying expectation’. The main takeaway being that the ‘fulfilment of the promise’ is ‘likely to be the starting point’ in many cases. However, it seems unlikely that proprietary estoppel cases will now become a walk in the park for practitioners, as, though it has been made clear that the remedy is usually to be framed around the granting of the promise, ‘considerations or practicality, justice between parties and fairness to third parties’ may mean that a lesser award is in fact required. More details from the judgment, including where the mantra ‘minimum equity to do justice’ and the idea of proportionality between remedy and detriment have been left are discussed below. Written by Adam Boyle, barrister at St John’s Chambers and junior counsel for the respondent in the Davies v Davies case.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The High Court considered the grounds on which equitable interest may be awarded, the appropriate rate of interest for any such award, and the factors which may justify an award of compound, rather than simple interest. An alternative as to whether the court ought to award simple interest pursuant to section 35A of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (SCA 1981)—and whether it extends to claims for equitable compensation, was raised by the parties but the court ultimately did not decide this issue given its finding as to equitable interest. The applicants had sought pre-judgment interest totaling around €38.5m but were ultimately awarded significantly less. An attempt to rely upon a further witness statement to support its interest claim, produced after the oral hearing but with subsequent written submissions, without formal application, was not permitted. The judgment provides a helpful summary of the key principles applicable to claims for interest in equity. Written by Natalie Kearney, barrister at St Philips Chambers.

Someone who thinks the market, or a particular share, will decline. A bear market is one in which most prices are falling. Also used adjectivally, as in ‘bearish’, ‘bear market’ and so on.

A takeover offer made without prior warning to the offeree board, which is made at a high offer price. The offer is intended to be so attractive that the offeree board will come under pressure from shareholders to recommend the bid and also to discourage other potential bidders from attempting a takeover. See also Virtual bid.

A market where investors are pessimistic and prices fall.

The owner of an article or instrument where legal title is evidenced by possession and transfer is effected by delivery.

Telecommunication services which give the user the capacity needed to transmit appropriate signals between certain access points.

A share in a company where ownership is evidenced by the physical certificate rather than entry on the register of members. Companies in the UK are required to have a register, so bearer shares are unusual and most likely to arise where anonymity of beneficial ownership is sought. Since 26 May 2015, a company has been prohibited from issuing bearer shares. In the nine month period ending on 26 February 2016, any existing bearer shareholders must surrender their shares to the company and have them exchanged for registered shares. If the bearer shares are not surrendered and exchanged, the company will cancel such shares and relevant monies will be paid into court by the company.

A competition you can hold where you invite potential advisers to display themselves to best advantage, indicate how little they charge, and how special is their service. It can be by post, or you can actually meet a short list. They can involve huge expense for the contestants, and are surprisingly time-consuming and exhausting to judge.

These clauses may be used in an APA to protect the buyer against the risk that certain occupational pension liabilities may pass to it under the TUPE, as a result of the case law originating from Beckmann v Dynamco Whicheloe Macfarlane Ltd Case C-164/00 [2002] OPLR 289.

While formal coaching sessions away from desks are a valuable experience for everyone involved, coaching can also be blended into day-to-day activities for any manager. Building a coaching mindset and approaching every situation with your coach’s ‘head’ on can rapidly build skills within a team. In this Practice Note we will cover: • how to develop a coaching approach to management • the ‘Growth Mindset’—what is it and how can you develop it? • goal setting—five minute to five-year plans • how to build coaching into your day • setting coaching boundaries • what to do when coaching goes wrong • five top tips for coaching For further reading on the topic of coaching, see Practice Notes: An introduction to coaching, Coaching for coachees, and Popular coaching models and methodologies. How to develop a coaching approach to management As a manager or supervisor, adopting a coaching approach can transform the way you lead your team. It will enable your team to think for themselves, self reflect, and boost their problem-solving capabilities,

Local Government analysis: A case addressing the tricky area of intentional homelessness and the reasonable to occupy test when someone loses temporary accommodation which had been provided under the main section 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996 (HA 1996) homeless duty. The appellant had been evicted from a homeless hostel following warnings over anti-social behaviour. The respondent local authority found him to be intentionally homelessness. He argued that he could not be found to be intentionally homeless as the temporary accommodation had never been accommodation reasonable for him to continue to occupy, and that instead he had remained legally homeless notwithstanding the fact that he had been housed under the main section 193 duty. Written by Kevin Long, solicitor at Hackney Community Law Centre.