Family analysis: In a judgment that deals almost exclusively with the nature and powers of the Family Court itself, the Court of Appeal has now provided crystal-clear appellate authority in support of the President of the Family Division’s guidance (in 2014 and 2018/2021) in respect of the Family Court’s extensive powers. Accordingly, the judgment’s significance spans the full spectrum of family proceedings and should be considered essential reading for practitioners. The circuit judge at first instance had been wrong to hold that she did not have the power to order (pursuant to the mother’s application) the father to provide his Apple ID and password to the local authority (and give all cooperation necessary to effect the transfer of the parental controls of the children’s Apple ID accounts re their mobile phones). These injunctions were held by the Court of Appeal to be incidental orders to the substantive care orders made and thus very much within the family court’s powers. The mother’s application had been properly made within the Family Court proceedings and did not require an application or transfer to the Family Division of the High Court. The circuit judge had also been wrong to determine that the mother’s application would need to be heard by a judge at High Court level. As a result, the appeal brought by the guardian was successful. David Wilkinson, solicitor at Slater Heelis, sets out the issues.

The disappointed widow may wish to consider the availability of various remedies. Rectification If it is considered that the testator intended (at the point the Will was executed) to make these gifts regardless of whether the specified property had been sold and replaced, a claim could be made for rectification under section 20 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982 (AJA 1982). This provides: ‘…(1) If a court is satisfied that a will is so expressed that it fails

Assuming it can be shown that the husband is domiciled in England and Wales, the wife is able to found her application for divorce on the basis of the court having jurisdiction by reason of the husband’s domicile in England and Wales (section 5(2)(g) of the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 (DMPA 1973)). If other bases of jurisdiction also exist, these should also be selected in the relevant section of the divorce application. Following Brexit, there is now no one single set of rules governing jurisdiction in relation to financial remedy applications, as was previously

It is stated that the wife of the deceased member is neither a current or prospective beneficiary under the pension scheme. However, it is not specified if the occupational pension scheme was contracted-out of the State Earnings Related Pension Scheme (SERPS) or was a contracted-in scheme. For example, since 1978, all occupational pension schemes (and personal pension schemes) which contracted-out of SERPS had to provide for a survivor’s pension for a widow. In relation to defined benefit schemes, guaranteed minimum pensions (GMPs) accrued until

ARCHIVED: This archived Practice Note outlines the background to the European Commission’s unsuccessful proposals to introduce a common form of single-member private limited company (the Societas Unius Personae or SUP) across the European Union, and its previous attempts to introduce a European private company (Societas Privata Europaea or SPE). It is not maintained and it is for background information only. Background—the proposal for a European private company (Societas Privata Europaea or SPE) On 25 June 2008, the European Commission proposed a Council Regulation on the Statute for a European private company. The proposal formed part of a wider package of measures designed to assist small and medium enterprises (SMEs) to carry on business across the European market. After a number of years of unsuccessful discussions regarding the proposal, it was not possible to reach unanimous agreement between Member States, and the Commission finally decided to withdraw its proposal for an SPE form in 2013, but stated that it would be considering a new proposal. Following

Dispute Resolution analysis: After a long delay, the Defamation and Malicious Publication (Scotland) Act 2021 (DMP(S)A 2021) came into force on 8 August 2022. Graeme MacLeod and Jessica Eaton of CMS (Edinburgh) explain the key changes the legislation has made to the law of defamation in Scotland.

This Q&A suggests that a company in administration is coming up to the first anniversary of the administration. The administration will then automatically come to an end under paragraph 76(1) of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), although it is possible for the administration to be extended by court or by the consent of creditors for up to a year under IA 1986, Sch B1, para 76(2). No mention is made in the question

The ‘ad medium filum’ rule is a rebuttable presumption that an owner of land which abuts either: • a public or private highway, or • a non-tidal river or stream also owns the soil of the adjoining highway, or the bed of the adjoining river or stream, up to its centre line. A transfer or lease of that land will therefore be presumed to include that part of the highway, river or stream without the necessity for any express mention of it. In the case of a highway, the presumption is known as the ‘ad medium filum viae’ rule, and is based on a combination of convenience (so as to prevent disputes as to precise boundaries) and also on the supposition that each owner contributed a portion of land when the highway was formed. In the case of a river or stream, the rule is known as the ‘ad medium filum aquae’ rule, and appears to be based solely on convenience. When does the ‘ad medium filum’ rule apply? The presumption applies even though the land

An assessment of the competitive effects of a merger involves examining the degree to which the merging firms are close and effective competitors of each other. This judgment must be forward-looking, considering how competition might change in future years. Relevant factors include: possible obsolescence of products; the state and development of any key technology; the resources of the firms; the firms’ level of debts; and whether the activities that are the subject of the merger are core or peripheral. At its most acute, it may be that one of the merging firms is simply unlikely to be able to continue in business in the future due to, for example, its financial losses and level of debt or its core products or technology having become obsolete. In such a case the acquiring company will argue that its target would exit the market absent the merger. This argument has come to be known as the ‘failing firm’ (or ‘exiting firm’) defence (and the merger itself may sometimes be described as a ‘rescue’ merger). Origins

Corporate Crime analysis: On 6 November 2024, the UK government published its much anticipated guidance on the new corporate offence of failure to prevent fraud (the ‘Guidance’). The Guidance sets forth the reasonable procedures companies should adopt to potentially avoid liability for fraud offences committed by associated persons. The Guidance is essential reading for companies and their representatives, as it provides a framework for companies to establish effective and proportionate fraud prevention measures. The offence comes into force on 1 September 2025. Companies therefore have just nine months to, as the Serious Fraud Office’s Director Nick Ephgrave said, ‘get their house in order or face criminal investigation’. This article considers some of the unique learning points from the Guidance and discusses the prospects of an increase in enforcement activity as a result of the offence. Rahman Ravelli’s Zulfi Meerza and Ruxandra Murariu detail the new offence’s implications for companies.

Immigration analysis: Partner Jennifer Stevens, PSL team co-ordinator Joshua Hopkins and paralegal Milo Grounds of Laura Devine Immigration look at the ‘unsuitable’ requirement for Tier 2 (General) migrants to obtain written confirmation from their employer that they will be required in the role for the ‘foreseeable future’, when applying for indefinite leave to remain. The article also looks at how employers may refuse to provide the confirmation, amid the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived is not maintained. This practical guidance relates to the pre-Procurement Act 2023 regime This Practice Note contains guidance relevant to public procurement exercises commenced before the Procurement Act 2023 (PA 2023) came into force on 24 February 2025. In-scope procurements begun on or after this date are governed by PA 2023. Under the transitional and savings provisions for PA 2023, the previous public procurement regimes continue to apply to the extent necessary to allow contracting authorities to complete and manage procurements commenced before PA 2023 came into force. This Practice Note should be read in that context. For background reading, see Practice Note: Introduction to the Procurement Act 2023—PA 2023. Further practical guidance on PA 2023 is set out in a separate subtopic, see: Procurement Act 2023—overview. This includes the following Practice Note: Vertical and horizontal arrangements—PA 2023. How has the ‘in-house’ exemption evolved? The search for alternative service delivery models to improve efficiency and effectiveness in the public sector