In the scenario you describe, the transfer to the landlord who is granting shared ownership leases contains an obligation on the transferred ‘not to transfer the Property or any part...without requiring the transferee to enter into a Deed of Covenant’ and ‘on any transfer (as above) to ensure the transferee applies to be a member of the ManCo’. This has been protected by registration of a restriction in form L at HM Land Registry. A form L restriction provides that there is to be ‘No [disposition {or specify type of disposition}] of the registered

CASE HUB (note–appeal lodged against decision in Case T- 76/14 Morningstar v Commission (Thomson/Reuters commitments)) ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 20 December 2012; it is no longer maintained. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 102 TFEU investigation into the abuse of dominance by Thomson Reuters in relation to licensing practices for consolidated real-time data feeds (case number COMP/39.654). Latest development On 20 December 2012, the Commission formally accepted commitments from Thomson Reuters. Under the commitments,

HMT-sponsored independent review on the cost and benefits of providing generic financial advice (2007/2008) named after chairman Otto Thoresen.

DWP-sponsored independent review on legislative simplification in June 2007, named after its chairman, Paul Thornton.

Mlex: Individuals seeking compensation under the EU’s privacy law need to prove that they suffered damage from a data breach, the EU’s highest court confirmed on 25 January 2024. Article 82 of the EU General Data Protection Regulation, Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (EU GDPR) requires proof that damage has occurred before individuals can be granted compensation from the data controller responsible, judges at the Court of Justice of the European Union said in a ruling that echoes a similar finding in a separate case in December 2023.

Law360: Up to 74,000 convictions for evading train fares are set to be quashed after a senior district judge ruled on 15 August 2024 that rail operators should never have used the single justice procedure (SJP) to prosecute passengers behind closed doors.

This Practice Note provides practical guidance on determining if the domestic industry is threatened by material injury. As such, it provides guidance on the change in circumstance required, the likelihood of material injury as well as the evidence on which the investigating authority may conclude that there is indeed a threat of material injury. Introduction In terms of the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the ‘Anti-dumping Agreement’), investigating authorities must determine that goods are being dumped and that the dumped goods are causing material injury or threatens to cause material injury. Often anti-dumping investigations are concerned with cases where the dumped goods are already causing material injury. In this regard, it is an objective factual finding that the dumped goods are causing material injury. In this regard see Practice Note An introduction to anti-dumping duties. In contrast, the determination of a threat of material injury is not a factual finding that the domestic industry has already suffered material injury. As such the determination

This Practice Note provides practical guidance on determining if the domestic industry is threatened by material injury. As such it provides guidance on the change in circumstance required, the likelihood of material injury as well as the evidence on which the investigating authority may conclude that there is indeed a threat of material injury. Introduction In terms of the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (the ‘SCM Agreement’), investigating authorities must determine that goods are being subsidised and that the subsidised imports are causing material injury or threatens to cause material injury. Often subsidy and countervailing investigations are concerned with cases where the subsidised imports are already causing material injury. In this regard, it is an objective factual finding that the subsidised imports are causing material injury. For guidance on what constitutes subsidised imports and material injury see Practice Note: An introduction to the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. In contrast, the determination of a threat of material injury is not a factual finding that the domestic industry

Threats of violence describes words, messages or conduct communicating an intention to inflict unlawful physical harm and causing the recipient to fear it will be carried out. It is a descriptive expression used across criminal, public order, harassment, communications and domestic abuse contexts rather than a single defined term, though specific offences exist.Key examples include: England & Wales and Northern Ireland-threats to kill (Offences Against the Person Act 1861, s16); fear or provocation of violence (Public Order Act 1986, s4); harassment and stalking causing fear of violence (Protection from Harassment Act 1997, incl ss2A, 4, 4A); malicious or threatening communications (Malicious Communications Act 1988; Communications Act 2003, s127); blackmail (demands with menaces) (Theft Act 1968, s21; Theft Act (NI) 1969, s20); coercive or controlling behaviour in domestic abuse (Serious Crime Act 2015, s76). Scotland-threatening or abusive behaviour (Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010, s38); threatening communications (2012 Act, Part 2); domestic abuse (2018 Act); extortion at common law. Ireland-threats to kill or cause serious harm (Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997, s5); harassment (s10); harmful/threatening communications (Harassment, Harmful Communications and Related Offences Act 2020); blackmail (Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001, s17).Threats alone may constitute common assault where immediate unlawful violence is apprehended (E&W/NI); in Scotland similar conduct is typically prosecuted under s38. Practically, threats support arrest, bail conditions, restraining or non-molestation orders, interdicts and protection/safety orders.

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note sets out the law of unjustified threats of patent infringement prior to its amendment by the Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Act 2017 (IP(UT)A 2017). Communications made prior to 1 October 2017 continue to be governed by the old regime in respect of patents, trade marks and designs, as appropriate. All references in this Practice Note to the Patents Act 1977 (PA 1977), are references to the legislation as it was prior to its amendment by the Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Act 2017 (IP(UT)A 2017) on 1 October 2017. For information about the current threats regime, which applies to communications made since 1 October 2017, see the maintained Practice Note: Unjustified threats of intellectual property right infringement. Threats to bring patent infringement proceedings Patent litigation is recognised as being time consuming and often costly. The statutory threats provisions have attempted to minimise the disruption to businesses that are threatened by rights owners wielding their registered 'monopoly' rights in an overly

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note sets out the law of unjustified threats of trade mark infringement prior to its amendment by the Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Act 2017 (IP(UT)A 2017. Communications made prior to 1 October 2017 continue to be governed by the old regime in respect of patents, trade marks and designs, as appropriate. All references in this Practice Note to the Trade Marks Act 1994 and the Community Trade Mark Regulations 2006, are references to the legislation as it was prior to its amendment by the Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Act 2017 (IP(UT)A 2017 on 1 October 2017. For information about the current threats regime, which applies to communications made since 1 October 2017, see the maintained Practice Note: Unjustified threats of intellectual property right infringement. Application of the rules This Practice Note summarises the application and purpose of the law of unjustified threats in the UK, governed by section 21 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (TMA 1994). Anyone

This Practice Note covers the offence of threats to kill. It looks at what the prosecution must prove and explores each of the elements of the offence. It also covers the approach to sentencing and refers to some key authorities on sentencing for the offence. The offence of threats to kill The offence of threats to kill is an offence which can be tried in the magistrates' court or the Crown Court. The magistrates' court is likely to decline jurisdiction if there are repeated threats or a visible weapon. Elements of the offence of threats to kill The elements of the offence of threats to kill are set out in section 16 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (OATPA 1861). The prosecution must prove: • any person without lawful excuse • makes a threat to another person to kill that person or another person • intending that person to fear that the threat would be carried out Meaning of 'without lawful excuse' The threat to kill must be made 'without lawful excuse'. Therefore