The Working Time Regulations 1998 (WTR 1998), SI 1998/1833 which implements Directive 2003/88/EC, the Working Time Directive (WTD), give workers a statutory entitlement to paid holiday. The right under the WTR 1998 is to a total of 5.6 weeks’

To seize property from a debtor or a wrongdoer.

For all applications submitted on the basis of a Certificate of Sponsorship (CoS) issued on after 6 April 2017, all salaries for applicants must be at the 'appropriate rate' for the job as confirmed in the relevant Standard Occupational Classification code, or at the minimum level of £30,000 whichever is higher, unless one of three listed exceptions applies. If an exception applies, the minimum salary level will be £20,800 or the appropriate rate, whichever is the higher. See Practice Note: Sponsoring a Skilled Worker. When assigning a CoS to a migrant, three pieces of information must be entered by the sponsor in relation to the salary package: • the gross salary figure which must represent the total amount paid to the worker, gross of any tax paid whether paid in the UK or overseas,

Arbitration analysis: The Singapore Court of Appeal (‘SGCA’) held that the failure of a party to participate in arbitration proceedings may preclude it from raising an infra petita challenge in its setting aside application by virtue of its non-participation and consequent failure to raise the key issues for the arbitral tribunal’s consideration. This case has far-reaching implications on the presentation of infra petita challenges in setting aside applications in Singapore, as well as decisions by parties to an arbitration to participate or not to participate in arbitration proceedings. Written by KOH Swee Yen, senior counsel, head of the International Arbitration Practice and a partner in the Commercial & Corporate Disputes and Commodities & International Trade Practices at WongPartnership LLP and Samuel TEO, an associate at WongPartnership LLP.

A beneficial interest under a trust of registered land can only be protected at HM Land Registry by the entry of a restriction. Interests under constructive trusts should be protected by the entry of a Form A restriction. The Land Registration Rules 2003 (LRR 2003), SI 2003/1417, r 94 requires a registered proprietor to apply for a Form A restriction when a registered estate becomes subject to a trust of land and this could include situations

The starting point is that, in order to be valid, an assignment of existing copyright must be in writing and signed by or on behalf of the assignor under section 90 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA 1988). Prima facie, these are the only formalities necessary to give effect to a legal assignment of existing copyright. Under general English law, assignment of legal rights which do not yet subsist amounts to a 'contract to assign', which may suffice to show equitable but not legal ownership of the assignee. However, future copyright in works not yet in existence are capable of being assigned by agreement pursuant to CDPA 1988, s 91, contrary to the general rule. The formalities required for an effective assignment

Business property relief or BPR is an inheritance tax relief that applies to reduce the value transferred by a transfer of value for inheritance tax (IHT) purposes. When seeking to apply BPR, you first need to check if the property is ‘relevant business property’ and if so, whether it qualifies for 100% relief or 50% relief. The categories of relevant business property are set out in section 105(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (IHTA 1984). For example, property consisting of a business or an interest in a business

Any unquoted shares in a company qualify for business property relief (BPR) provided the company is trading (section 105(1)(bb) of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (IHTA 1984)). BPR for a ‘quoted’ company means listed on a recognised Stock Exchange and ‘unquoted’ means any shares

This Q&A refers you to the following content which you may find useful: Trusts of land—overview Practice Notes: • Trusts of land—practice and procedure

Case B in Part I of Schedule 3 to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 (AHA 1986) entitles the landlord of an agricultural holding to give a notice to quit under AHA 1986, s 26(2) where ‘…the land is required for a use, other than for agriculture…for which permission has been granted on an application made under the enactments relating to town and country planning…’. AHA 1986 does not in terms specify whether the planning permission must still be current when the notice to quit expires. Nor have we been able to find any case law which deals with this point. However, we would draw your attention to the following passage in: Recovery of possession for non-agricultural use: Scammell Densham and Williams Law of Agricultural

Arbitration analysis: The Court of Appeal held that a ‘subject’ provision in a contemplated fixture was a pre-condition to that fixture, the effect of which was to negative any intention to conclude a binding contract until such time as the subject was lifted, which, on the facts, had not been forthcoming. That meant that not only the fixture, but also the arbitration agreement contained therein, had never been concluded. The court stressed that whether an arbitration agreement has been concluded is subject to the usual contract formation rules and thus the separability principle has no role to play where the dispute was as to whether a legally binding agreement had ever been reached in the first place. The court’s relatively straightforward conclusion was that the respective parties had agreed in their negotiations merely that in the event that a binding contract was concluded, that contract would contain an arbitration clause, which of course did not amount to the agreement of an arbitration clause. This judgment, which is now the leading case on the separability principle, is of particular significance both for the shipping market, given the usual commercial practice of fixing a vessel ‘on subs’, and also more widely for all parties who are negotiating contracts including arbitration clauses. Written by Sally-Ann Underhill, partner, and Dimitris Athanasopoulos, associate at Reed Smith LLP.

Application of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 See initially Practice Note: Who is subject to the freedom of information regime, which explores the obligations of public authorities to comply with freedom of information requests and how ‘public authorities’ is defined for the purpose of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FIA 2000). Section 3 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FIA 2000) defines ‘public authorities’ by reference to FIA 2000, Sch 1. FIA 2000, Sch 1, Pt III covers which bodies are public authorities within the National Health Service, including health authorities, NHS Trusts and other national health bodies responsible for public health in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. See FIA 2000, Sch 1, Part III, in particular paras 43A–45, which include: ‘43A Any person providing primary medical services, primary dental services or primary ophthalmic services— (a) in accordance with arrangements made under section 92 or 107 of the National Health Service Act 2006, or section 50 or 64 of the National Health Service (Wales)