This Practice Note discusses how an agricultural tenancy in Scotland can be passed from one person to another by way of lifetime assignation, testate or intestate succession. The procedure to be followed depends on whether the tenancy is a 1991 Act Tenancy governed by the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991 (AH(S)A 1991) or a 2003 Act Tenancy governed by the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003 (AH(S)A 2003), whether the tenancy allows assignation or succession, and in the latter case, whether the tenant makes a bequest in a will or dies intestate. An overriding principle is that in all cases, unless the landlord agrees, a tenant cannot pass an agricultural tenancy on to anyone (eg company, society, club or firm) other than another single natural person. The Scottish Land Commission has produced a useful guide, see: Scottish Land Commission—A guide to–Transfer of tenancies by assignation and succession. Succession to an agricultural tenancy under AH(S)A 1991 Testate Succession If the tenant is an individual or individuals, the tenancy can be passed on in

This occurs when individuals inherit in equal shares.

In the law of succession, to inherit by branch or group rather than per capita.

If you fail to plan, you are planning to fail These wise words, often attributed to Benjamin Franklin, are highly pertinent to the management of law firms today. Your firm may be a sole practice or a large organisation with many stakeholders but the issue is the same. Succession planning is not just about planning for retirement; it is planning the future of your firm and then preparing to take the action needed to deliver that plan. Succession planning will be defined by whether your goal is to: • grow • hold (remain the same) • dispose, or • close Once the goal is clear, succession planning becomes a lot easier. Your plans will always need to address the demands of clients, people, structure, finance and risk but the emphasis will vary according to your goal. Staff retention needs careful management if you are looking to close, but nurturing the talent of the future will be critical if you wish to grow. If you aim to sell,

Local Government analysis: Section 87(b) of the Housing Act 1985 (HA 1985) was not of discriminatory effect in respect of the daughter of a secure tenant by preventing the daughter succeeding to the tenancy on the secure tenant dying while permanently residing at a care home. The daughter could not rely on her status as the daughter of a secure tenant who was removed permanently from her secure tenancy to a Care Home because of ill-health, and also who did not have mental capacity to assign her tenancy to her potential successor, as a protected ‘other status’ within Article 14 of the European Commission on Human Rights (ECHR). Capacity was determined not to be sound foundation for such a status, as it could change from time to time. Written by Tim Baldwin, barrister, Housing Team, Garden Court Chambers.

Private Client analysis: H and W divorced on terms that the matrimonial home (in H’s name) would be left to the son of their marriage (T) on H’s death. The divorce settlement was approved by the Family Court by order made in 2017 and H made a Will as per the agreement/order. Following a terminal diagnosis in 2019, H married his girlfriend, M, so that M could draw down the widow’s benefit of his pension post-death. The marriage revoked the Will. On the ensuing intestacy, the estate passed to M. T claimed against H’s estate for breach of the divorce settlement. M counter-claimed for ownership of the house under section 11 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (I(PFD)A 1975), on the basis that H had entered into the divorce settlement with the intention of defeating any future claim by her, and that W had not given full consideration, the divorce agreement being better than she would have achieved in contested divorce proceedings. The divorce settlement was upheld and section 11 claim dismissed, albeit that H and W found to be in collusion against M with regards the divorce negotiations. Written by Imogen Halstead, barrister at No5 Chambers.

Successive sentences describes two or more criminal sentences ordered to run one after another, so that the offender serves the second (and any further) term only after completing the first. It is closely related to, and often used interchangeably with, “consecutive sentences”, as contrasted with concurrent sentences.In England and Wales and Northern Ireland, the power to impose successive (consecutive) custodial sentences is governed principally by statutory provisions such as the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and related sentencing legislation, together with Sentencing Council guidelines. In Scotland, similar powers exist under Scots criminal law and practice, and in Ireland under legislation including the Criminal Justice Act 1951 and subsequent amendments. Usage and effect are broadly consistent across these jurisdictions.Successive sentences are commonly imposed for multiple offences arising from distinct incidents, or where statute requires a sentence to be served in addition to an existing term (for example, certain mandatory minimums). They significantly affect total time in custody, eligibility for parole, licence periods and calculation of release dates, making accurate sentencing remarks and record‑keeping essential.

From 6 April 2015, a successor is an individual nominated by a dependant or nominee to receive benefits on their death. A successor cannot be a corporate entity, trust, charity or other organisation (subject to the proviso below). Note that a successor may also nominate another successor.

One or more additional funds raised by a fund manager. Most private equity firms will start raising a successor fund when their current fund is around 70% invested. Venture capital firms tend to raise new funds earlier than buy-out firms, because they usually need to invest in follow-on rounds for their portfolio firms.

For law firms, whether you are thinking of merging, acquiring a practice, selling up or closing down, the successor practice rules will almost always be relevant. It is very important you consider these rules and how they will impact the transaction as the results are often unexpected, expensive and ultimately can create unacceptable risks for one or other party or indeed both. It is vital to understand the implications of your plans. If the parties work together, it is often possible to mitigate risks sufficiently to enable a transaction to proceed where otherwise it may fail. As always knowledge is power. It is rare that the acquisition of any part of a law firm will not lead to the acquiring business becoming a successor practice—you are probably best to assume this is the case. Section 1 seeks to set out how a successor practice is created. If you believe your transaction can avoid the creation of a successor practice, eg you are only acquiring client matters, take advice because the smallest error can mean you still become the successor

NOTE—to see whether notification thresholds in Sudan and throughout the world are met, see further: Where to Notify. Sudan is also a member of COMESA, which operates a supra-national merger control regime. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Sudan merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Sudan? The Prime Minister issued Decree No. 513 on 15 November 2020, under which the Council for Competition and Prevention of Monopolistic Practices (Council) was formed. The Council is the competition regulator in Sudan. It is currently uncertain as to whether the Council apparatus responsible for merger control is operational. In 2021, the Council confirmed its intention to amend the Regulation of Competition and Prevention of Monopoly Act, 2009 (Act), in order to align it with regional conventions. One of the amendments that are expected to be introduced include filing fees for concentrations (ie mergers). However, there has yet to be such an amendment introduced. We are not aware of any formal steps that have

The Home Office has updated it's 'Rights of Appeal caseworker guidance' to say that the Home Office will no longer be issuing appealable refusal decisions where a person already has leave to remain in the UK. Previously the guidance still provided for a right of appeal if the person did not already have leave to remain on human rights grounds. A common scenario where this arose was appeals against a refusal on the ten-year long residence settlement route. Now if a person already holds any form of leave to remain (except 3C leave), the Home Office will not issue an appealable refusal decision and the only remedy would be judicial review, unless the refusal attracts a right of administrative review (which would not usually arise for human rights applications).