Secretary of State’s function Where the Secretary of State receives an extradition request from a category 2 territory (made in the approved way) and it contains the required information, they must issue a certificate under section 70 of the Extradition Act 2003 (EA 2003) (see below), unless one of the grounds for refusing certification applies. The Secretary of State’s first main function in extradition is therefore to receive formal extradition requests made by category 2 territories and to certify them if certain conditions are fulfilled. Once an extradition judge has concluded an extradition hearing in respect of a person requested by a category 2 territory and has sent the case to the Secretary of State for their decision as to whether the person is to be extradited, the Secretary of State must decide whether they are prohibited from ordering the person's extradition by reason of any of the statutory bars to extradition within the scope of their consideration within a specific timeframe. The Secretary of State’s second main function

Section 100 of the Highways Act 1980 (HiA 1980) gives the highway authority (HA) the right to carry out drainage works on adjacent land and maintain

Introduction The adoption of sewers is the process by which sewers are vested in the sewerage undertaker or appointed sewerage company and subsequently maintained at the undertaker's expense. A sewer adoption agreement (referred to in this Practice Note as a ‘section 104 agreement’) is an agreement that developers or, as referred to by Ofwat, ‘self-lay providers’ (or SLPs), enter into with the undertaker when the developer wants the undertaker to take over responsibility for sewerage infrastructure they have constructed so that it becomes a public sewer. A sewer adoption agreement can also be entered where an agreement is in place under section 160 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (WIA 1991) such that the undertaker agrees to carry out work in connection with the construction of sewerage infrastructure at the relevant person’s expense. The power for undertakers to enter into such agreement is contained in WIA 1991, s 104. The adoption of new sewerage connections is currently approached differently in England and Wales. Procedure for the adoption

The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990), s 106 provides the statutory authority for Local Planning Authorities and persons interested in land to enter into planning obligations to make acceptable developments which might otherwise be unacceptable in planning terms.

Agreements made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, s 106 between developers and local planning authorities (LPAs) in respect of land, that regulate development or require money to be paid to the LPA to mitigate the impacts of development. They bind the land and are enforceable against successors.

A builder was entitled to a VAT refund in respect of work to convert agricultural buildings into residential premises and an office. A section 106 agreement did not prevent the separate use or disposal of the residential premises. The works were a zero-rated supply.

Planning analysis: This is part two of the three-part series on agreements made under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990), also known as, s 106 obligations. Part one of this series looked at how to retain flexibility in drafting; ensuring the final s 106 obligation remains attractive to funders; and the steps to be taken to maintain development cash flow. This part two will look at the early and late stage development viability reviews; dealing with multiple parties; and deeds of variation associated with applications under TCPA 1990, s 73, also known as, s 73 applications. These articles by Sarah Fitzpatrick, partner and Head of Planning, at Norton Rose Fulbright, will look at common issues and how effective drafting can help.

Arbitration analysis: The Supreme Court of India confirmed its pro-arbitration bias by ruling that an order under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’), is not amenable to review by the same court, and emphasizing that judicial interference must be limited in order to prevent a party from resorting to procedural sabotage. The court was considering a challenge to an order of the Patna High Court appointing an arbitrator (under s 11 of the Act), more than three years after the respondent, a public sector undertaking, had participated in more than seventy hearings in the arbitration. The court upheld the arbitration agreement by severing the portion contravening a non-derogable provision of the Act (Seventh Schedule read with s 12(5)), while nevertheless holding the parties to their contractual bargain to arbitrate. The court also distinguished between cases in which a waiver may be implied owing to a party’s failure to object to alleged procedural impropriety (under s 4), and cases where the arbitrator is disqualified from acting under the Act (under s 12). The Supreme Court held that in the latter case, merely participating in the arbitration and seeking an extension of the arbitrator’s mandate, would not override the requirement of an express written waiver of such disqualification (under the proviso to s 12(5)). While the court noted that this was a fit case for imposing costs, it refrained from doing so, but instead issued a stern warning to the respondent, noting that public officers are custodians of public faith, not mere administrators, and that any repetition of such conduct may invite adverse remarks or personal accountability. Written by Shaneen Parikh, partner at Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas and Anjali Kumari, associate at Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas.

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA 1985) implies into leases of dwellings for a term of less than seven years certain repairing covenants. There are some exceptions contained within the LTA 1985, for example, a letting. Section 11 provides as follows: ‘11- Repairing obligations in short leases. • In a lease to which this section applies (as to which, see sections 13 and 14) there is implied a covenant by the lessor— a. to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling-house (including drains, gutters and external pipes), b. to keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling-house for the supply of water, gas and electricity and for sanitation (including basins, sinks,

See liquidation demerger.

This refers to section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972 which is an important local government subsidiary power.

IP analysis: The decision of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) in this case is a timely reminder that even a well-known brand cannot circumvent the hard evidence limits of trade mark use. easyGroup Ltd (easyGroup) alleged that Jaybank Leisure Ltd’s (Jaybank) use of EASIHIRE for vehicle rental infringed its easyHire UK trade mark registration. Judge Hacon accepted that the marks at issue were indeed strikingly similar and found confusion likely under section 10(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (TMA 1994). On a straightforward confusion analysis, easyGroup may have succeeded in this case, but that was not the end of the story. The trade mark infringement claim ultimately failed in its entirely, as Jaybank invoked the non-use defence under TMA 1994, s 11A, arguing that easyGroup had not made genuine use of the easyHire mark for the registered rental services in the relevant five-year period. The court agreed. easyGroup’s evidence consisted largely of later created websites and somewhat ambitious franchise material, neither of which were sufficient to establish a real market supporting commercial use. This decision highlights the sharp edge of TMA 1994, s 11A and makes clear that in the UK, enforceability depends on genuine use, not registration alone. Written by, Tamsin Knight, trainee trade mark attorney at HGF Ltd, and Lee Curtis, partner and chartered trade mark attorney at HGF Ltd.