This Practice Note considers the availability of proprietary remedies (ie remedies attaching to specific property, opposed to a personal remedy (eg damages claim)) following rescission and rectification. Where a contract (or gift) has been rescinded or a contract has been rectified, this may leave one of the parties in the position where they have suffered some loss as a result of the rescission or rectification. For example, where a contract is rescinded the aim is to put the parties back into the position that they would have been as if the contract had never been made and yet, prior to the rescission property may have transferred from one party to the other or another. It is in this way that a claim in restitution may be available to provide some form of remedy. What is rescission? Rescission is an equitable remedy which aims to put parties back in the position that they would have been in prior to a contract being made or a gift being extended. Under the common law, rescission is only

This Practice Note considers the proprietary remedy (or process) of ‘following and tracing’. For further guidance on some of the more difficult and practical issues to consider when pleading and evidencing a claim to follow and/or trace, see Practice Notes: • Following and tracing claims—practical considerations • Difficulties in ‘following and tracing’ For guidance on proprietary remedies generally, see Practice Note: Proprietary remedies—what, when and why. Proprietary ‘remedy’ of following and tracing ‘Following’ and ‘tracing’ are not claims as such, but rather processes or evidential processes of locating and identifying assets against which a claim may be asserted. By way of simple illustration: • D misappropriates C’s car and then gives it to A • C could ‘follow’ the car into the hands of A and assert a claim to recover it from A • depending on the specific facts C may also have a claim against D If instead, however, D misappropriates C’s car, and then swaps the car with E for a boat and then C gives the boat to A: • C

This Practice Note on proprietary remedies identifies what they are, when you might seek them and why. What are proprietary remedies? A proprietary remedy (or proprietary claim) is one which attaches to specific property, as opposed to a ‘personal remedy’ such as a damages claim for money. That is not to say that when considering proprietary remedies, the property in question cannot be money or a debt owed, it can (Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale). Thus ‘property’ for the purposes of proprietary remedies includes, eg: • real property and any physical asset • money • intangible assets (such as shares) • digital assets and/or the proceeds of sale of such ‘property’. Where the defendant has received property which, either at law or in equity, traceably belongs to the claimant, then a proprietary claim may follow. A claimant who wishes to seek a proprietary remedy must establish not only that the defendant received property which belongs to the claimant, but that the defendant still retains that property (or that the property can be

Quistclose trusts are a form of proprietary remedy. This Practice Note considers when the court will recognise a Quistclose trust over money or property misappropriated by or in the hands of the defendant. For guidance generally on proprietary remedies, see Practice Note: Proprietary remedies—what, when and why. What is a Quistclose trust? ‘Quistclose’ trusts take their name from the decision in Barclays Bank Ltd v Quistclose Investments Ltd. A Quistclose trust can potentially arise where money or other property is transferred to someone else for a particular purpose. The key point being the fact that the money or property has been transferred for a particular purpose—where that particular purpose cannot or fails to materialise then the property is said to be held on a resulting (Quistclose) trust. In Quistclose itself, the respondent had lent money to a company to enable it to pay a dividend and a separate bank account had been opened to receive the loan. The company then went into liquidation without having paid the dividend. The bank

The person or body of persons responsible for the management of a school.

Objects used in a film by actors or to create a set.

This Checklist is designed to assist solicitors advising on private prosecutions as well as private prosecutors themselves, to illustrate the major advantages, challenges and pitfalls of private prosecutions, as opposed to other forms of redress. Advantages of bringing a private prosecution Some of the key advantages to choosing a private prosecution over a public prosecution or civil fraud claim are: • the ability to take action where public prosecutors are unwilling to take action. Private prosecutions are often brought where public prosecutors are unwilling to bring prosecutions against the potential defendant. As Lord Thomas CJ said in R v Zinga at para 57: ‘...at a time when the retrenchment of the state is evident in many areas, including the funding of the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office, it seems inevitable that the number of private prosecutions will increase.’ For example, the case of R v Sultana (unreported) involved a very substantial case of fraud, which the CPS had decided not to prosecute, taken

What are cryptoassets? One of the hurdles in relation to understanding non-traditional currencies and assets lies in the inconsistent use of language. Regulators and tax authorities, as well as commentators, refer variously to digital currencies, virtual currencies, cryptocurrencies, cryptoassets and crypto tokens, and it is not always clear whether they are using the terms interchangeably or with the specific meaning of each in mind. For more information about how these terms are defined, see Practice Note: Web 3.0, digital assets and cryptoassets—essentials. This Practice Note examines the pros and cons in using cryptoassets. There are a number of advantages to using cryptoassets which undoubtedly account for their rapid increase in popularity. However, these advantages need to be balanced against the risks associated with the cryptoasset. Pros of cryptoassets Below are some of the advantages of cryptoassets (in particular cryptoassets used as a fiat currency substitute): • lower transaction costs as compared to real currency and asset transfers • transparency of costs and charges—hidden costs and additional

Law360 analysis: In many international jurisdictions, expert witness evidence is given by way of a written report, which is used to cross-examine the expert at a trial or hearing. Neil Ashton, Dan Langley and Emilia Drozda of StoneTurn Group LLP, London, consider the advantages and drawbacks of having more than one expert compile the report and submit themselves to cross-examination.

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the cancellation of the investigation on 13 February 2020 after the abandonment of the transaction; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline UK merger investigation into the anticipated acquisition by Prosafe SE of Floatel International Limited. The transaction involves horizontal overlaps in markets for the supply of semi-submersible offshore accommodation support vessels (known as ‘flotels’) to oil and gas companies. Latest developments On 13 February 2020, the CMA formally cancelled its phase 2 investigation following the parties’ decision to abandon the transaction. Parties • Prosafe SE is a Norwegian based company, listed on the Oslo Stock Exchange, that owns and operates semi-submersible accommodation vessels. Prosafe owns and operates nine such vessels, each with a capacity of 300-500 beds, with options for delivery for two more vessels over the next five years. • Floatel International is a Bermuda based company that owns and operates semi-submersible accommodation vessels. Floatel owns and operates five such vessels, each with capacity of 440-550 beds. Between them,

The Administrative Court held that the Home Secretary’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action under section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (TA 2000) was unlawful. While the organisation was capable of being ‘concerned in terrorism’, the decision breached the Home Secretary’s own policy on proscription and resulted in a disproportionate interference with rights under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The court rejected arguments based on procedural fairness and relevant considerations, but decided to quash the decision on public law and human rights grounds, emphasising the limited scale of terrorist activity and the severe consequences of proscription. The quashing order is stayed pending appeal.

Public Law analysis: The Court of Appeal allowed the Home Secretary’s appeal against the Administrative Court’s judgment quashing the proscription under section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (TA 2000) of Palestine Action. The Administrative Court had misinterpreted the Home Secretary’s proscription policy by treating it as limiting the factors relevant to the exercise of the statutory discretion and had failed to afford appropriate weight to the Home Secretary’s institutional competence in matters of national security. Applying the proportionality test afresh, the court concluded that the interference with Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) was justified and proportionate. The judgment provides important guidance on the interpretation of government policy, the application of proportionality in national security cases, and the margin of appreciation accorded to executive decision-making.