The offence of acquisition of limited company's own shares The general rule is that a limited company must not acquire its own shares, whether by purchase, subscription or otherwise, except in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006). A limited company may acquire any of its own fully paid shares if it does not pay for them, ie they may not give valuable consideration for their acquisition. The general rule prohibiting a limited company acquiring its own shares does not prohibit: • the acquisition of shares in a reduction of share capital duly made • the purchase of shares in pursuance of an order of the court; on application to the court to cancel resolution for re-registration as a private company, on objection to redemption or purchase of shares out of capital, under a remedial order in case of breach of prohibition of public offers by private company or as protection of members against unfair prejudice, or • the forfeiture of shares, or the acceptance of shares surrendered

Private Client analysis: The case concerns numerous competing proprietary and tracing claims against various entities in respect of complex (and dubious) commercial transactions. In considering the entitlement of each party to distinct assets, Mr Justice Foxton analysed the applicability of various equitable principles such as the operation of the ‘bona fide purchaser’ defence to equitable claims, equitable priority and equitable assignment. Two notable doctrines considered, which are dealt with in this case analysis, were points arising under the rule in Saunders v Vautier and also the nature of a beneficial interest under a trust in the context of disability v priority models of trust law. Written by Lynne Counsell, barrister at Addington Chambers.

Track allocation and the value of a housing disrepair claim The Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR), SI 1998/3132, r 26.5 provides that the court will allocate a claim to a track when all parties have filed their directions questionnaires or when giving directions under CPR, SI 1998/3132, r 26.3(8). By that stage, the defendant will have filed a pleaded defence. It will therefore be apparent to the court from the contents of that pleaded defence how much of the claim is admitted by the defendant and how much of the claim is disputed. CPR 26.6 sets out the normal scope of each track. In relation to a housing disrepair claim, CPR 26.6(1)(b) states that the small claim is the normal track for: ‘…any claim which includes

We have assumed that the scheme forfeiture rules do not apply. If a member reaches the age of 75 without having taken all their benefits, these unused benefits are tested against the lifetime allowance on the member’s 75th birthday. This is done through benefit crystallisation event (BCE) 5, 5A or 5B depending on the nature of the unused benefits. The only BCE that can be triggered after an individual’s 75th birthday is where a scheme

For general information about the valuation of assets, see Practice Note: IHT—deduction of liabilities. In particular it should be noted that where an asset has been valued for inheritance tax (IHT) purposes on death, the value ascertained is also taken to be the market value of that asset at the date of the death for capital gains tax purposes. If the value of the shares have increased since the date of death then there may be a capital gains

The statutory framework The Pensions Act 2004 (PeA 2004) introduced a ‘scheme-specific’ funding regime applying to occupational pension schemes operating on a defined benefit (DB) basis. Certain schemes are exempt from this regime—for further information, see: Schemes exempt from the scheme-specific funding regime, below. The scheme-specific funding regime came into effect on 30 December 2005 and replaced the Minimum Funding Requirement (MFR), which proved to be unsuccessful as a test of individual schemes’ financial positions. It also introduced into UK law the scheme funding requirements of the IORP Directive 2003/41/EC on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision (the 2003 IORP Directive, subsequently repealed and recast as Archived Directive (EU) 2016/2341, Archived IORP II). Note that neither the 2003 IORP Directive, nor Archived IORP II form part of UK domestic law, but the UK laws implementing them do. The relevant UK legislation is contained in: • PeA 2004, ss 221–233. Significant changes were made to these provisions through the Pension Schemes Act 2021, s 123, Sch 10. These changes

Family analysis: In Villiers, the Court of Appeal allowed the wife’s appeal against a decision of Mr Justice Mostyn dismissing her application under section 27 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973). The Court of Appeal found that the court below was wrong for three reasons. First, that the ‘relevant date’ to assess an application under MCA 1973, s 27 should be the date of the hearing, not the date of the application, and alternatively, it was not procedurally fair for the judge below to raise a new material issue at a final hearing and then dismiss an application on that basis, given the history of the proceedings. In addition, that the common law principle that a husband has a duty to provide for his wife is outdated and no longer has any relevance to MCA 1973, s 27. Finally, that the jurisdiction for divorce proceedings is entirely separate from the jurisdiction for maintenance and an applicant may choose the best forum available. Jessica O’Driscoll-Breen, barrister at QEB Chambers, considers the issues.

Family analysis: The court considered the scope of the ‘intolerable situation’ that it must consider under Article 13(b) of the Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the 1980 Hague Convention). The court found that it was not necessary to determine the intolerability of a child’s situation upon their return to their home state through a comparison with their situation in the UK. However, the court did observe that when considering Art 13(b), it is not undertaking a welfare evaluation. To compare and assess both situations that a child faces would inevitably draw the court towards a welfare determination and to take that approach would be wholly contrary to the 1980 Hague Convention. Moreover, the court highlighted that it is essential to be clear on what is established within proceedings. While the court may determine a grave risk of harm to a child, it does not then follow that positive findings are made against a party. In addition, the court also made some observations and gave guidance on the interplay between abduction and asylum proceedings. Tahmina Rahman, barrister at 1GC, and Emily Chapman, pupil barrister at 1GC, consider the issues.

This Practice Note explains the scope of an inquest and the distinction between the traditional scope of an inquest, also known as a Jamieson inquest, and the broader scope of an Article 2 inquest, also known as a Middleton inquest, when Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is engaged. For information on what inquests are and their purpose, see Practice Note: Coroners' inquests—an introductory guide. For guidance on how to make representations on the scope of an inquest, see Practice Note: How to make representations on the scope of an inquest and for more information on Article 2 inquests specifically, see: Article 2 inquests—checklist. It is for the coroner to decide how broad and deep an inquiry into a death will be. This is referred to as the ‘scope’ of the inquest. The scope of each inquest is different based on the unique factual circumstances of each case. The scope of a coroner’s inquest is set by statute under section 5 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (CJA 2009)

Family analysis: A Court of Appeal decision that the English courts had jurisdiction to hear divorce and financial remedy proceedings involving a couple with several international property bases is examined by solicitor Stuart Clark, of The International Family Law Group LLP.

The Red Bus case or Temple Island Collections v New English Teas was decided in the, as it was then, Patents County Court (PCC) in January 2012 and concerns the scope of photographic copyright. The decision has been the subject of much discussion and a certain amount of criticism given that it appears to call into question one of the central tenets of copyright law that there is no copyright in an idea. Temple Island deals with the scope of copyright protection. Although the PCC (now the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court) was an ‘inferior’ court whose judgments did not impose a binding precedent on higher courts, copyright cases that go all the way to trial are relatively rare and this case has therefore been relatively influential. Factual background Temple Island Collections (TIC) specialises in the design, manufacture and supply of souvenir gift items with a British theme. In 2010, TIC issued copyright infringement proceedings against New English Teas (NET) in the PCC. NET supplies gift packed teas with a British theme and was using a photograph

Arbitration analysis: In a decision overturning a judgment which failed to consider India’s commercial reservation to the New York Convention (the Convention), the Full Federal Court of Australia has indicated that Australian courts will consider whether a foreign state has waived its sovereign immunity by investigating the scope of its ratification of a treaty, including as determined by its reservations to it. The India v CCDM Holdings case has, however indicated that Australian courts may take a narrower view of commercial reservations under the Convention than other international courts and tribunals, potentially making certain international awards rendered in a commercial context relatively more difficult to enforce in Australia. Written by Dr Julian Wyatt, partner at Abrahams Meese Lawyers, Melbourne, Australia.