Agreements entered into under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990), known as section 106 agreements, are enforceable by the local planning authority (LPA) against any person entering into the obligation (TCPA 1990, s 106(3)(a)) and against any person deriving title from that person (TCPA 1990, s 106(3)(b)). As a matter of law, the LPA can therefore enforce a section 106 agreement against either the original person who entered into the obligation or a tenant, if that tenant can be said to derive title from the person who originally entered into

Although the exercise of a company share option plan (CSOP) option can be made conditional upon the option holder or the company achieving specified targets, there are restrictions on the types of conditions that can be imposed. HMRC requires that any such performance targets are: • objective, based on business results or other objective criteria • either specified when the option was granted or with objective machinery in place at that time which governed when and which additional conditions can be set, and • only capable of being waived or amended in specified circumstances and to a specified extent, or in accordance with objective machinery which was in place when the option was granted, which covers when and to what extent the conditions can be amended HMRC

The stated objective The government’s stated objective was that the New Code (Part 1 of Schedule 3A to the Communications Act 2003 (CA 2003)) should not be contracted out of at all. The Department for Culture Media and Sport Department for Culture Media and Sport: A New Electronic Communications Code in its White Paper, May 2016) said this, ‘the Government considers that any attempts by one or more parties to gain advantage by circumventing the new Code’s provisions must be prohibited if the Code is to be truly effective. We will therefore make provision in the revised Code to prohibit the ability to contract out and stop parties making private agreements capable of excluding Code provisions’. However, that objective was not fully followed through into the New Code. The contracting out provision The contracting out provision is contained in paragraph 100 of the New Code. It provides:

Data Data can be defined as ‘facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis’. There is no basic property right in a piece of data, so it is not possible to ‘own’ the data itself. However, ownership rights can accrue in relation to the recorded, aggregated or collected form of data by way of intellectual property rights arising in relation to the same. Copyright may arise in relation to the data, depending on the type and amount of data collected. For example, data may be protected as a literary work, a film or sound recording or a typological arrangement. For more information, see Practice Note: Copyright—protectable works. Databases In many cases, data will be aggregated within a database. In the UK there are two intellectual property rights which can subsist in a database: copyright and a sui generis database right. Both rights can be owned in relation to the same

An assured shorthold tenancy (AST) is a type of assured tenancy with reduced security of tenure. If a property is sold subject to a ‘tenancy’ that is a ‘new tenancy’ within the meaning of section 1 of the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 (LT(C)A 1995), then under LT(C)A 1995, s 3: • the benefit and burden of all landlord and tenant covenants are annexed to the whole (and each part) of the reversion • the benefit and burden of all landlord and tenant covenants pass on an assignment of the reversion • as from the assignment,

We refer you to Practice Note: Determining planning applications—material considerations, which sets out the tests for material considerations generally. It is established law that the courts will determine what can be a material consideration, but the decision-maker will have to decide the weight to be given to each material consideration. Generally, the definition of what is a material consideration is interpreted broadly by the courts. However, it should generally relate to the development and use of land (Stringer v Minister of Housing and Local Government and Great Portland Estates v Westminster). More recently in R (Kides) v South Cambridgeshire District Council, the Court of Appeal held: ‘a consideration is “material”, in this context, if it is relevant to the question whether the application should be granted or refused; that is to say if it is a factor which, when placed in the decision-maker's

One of the key attributes of an English limited partnership is that the general partner has unlimited liability for the debts and obligations of the limited partnership. A limited partner by contrast, enjoys limited liability status, provided that such limited partner does not participate in the management of the limited partnership business. Where a limited partnership is not a private fund limited partnership (see below), a limited partner's liability is limited to its capital contribution to the limited partnership. Therefore, in an English limited partnership, a limited partner's investment has been commonly structured as 99.99% loan (or advance) to the limited partnership with the remaining 0.01% as a capital contribution to the limited partnership. If a limited partner does participate in management of the limited partnership, such limited partner will forego

The recognition and enforcement of transnational trusts is a very complex topic; the following is only an outline of the main points for consideration. Recognition of a trust of foreign-situs property An English court may recognise a trust where the trustee and beneficiary both live in the UK, but the trust property is situated outside the UK. This principle applies to both movable and immovable property, but is more limited in the latter case. In order for the court to recognise the rights and obligations of the parties under the trust, it must first be satisfied that the trust exists. There are certain preliminary matters that need to be addressed before it can be said that a trust has come into existence: the capacity of the settlor to dispose of his property on trust, the vesting of the property in the trustee on trust and the validity of the formal instrument creating

Private Client analysis: Under English law, the starting point is that a charity must have exclusively charitable purposes (and the Charities Act 2011 (CA 2011) introduced a wider set of purposes). What happens, however, where a will bequest appears to create an apparently invalid trust with purposes which are both charitable and non-charitable? Can that trust be saved? Written by Adam Carvalho (legal director) and Olivia O’Neil (trainee solicitor) at Myerson Solicitors LLP.

Section 22 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 allows the court to make an order for maintenance before the making of a final order of divorce, ie an order for maintenance pending suit (MPS). The power is broad and has been described as ‘rough and ready’ (see F v F (Maintenance Pending Suit)). It allows the court to make an order meeting the needs of the financially weaker party before the court has the opportunity fully to consider the financial picture. There is no presumption that the parties will be responsible only for their own

The key UK and EU export control legislation consists of: • the Export Control Act 2002 (ECA 2002): pursuant to ECA 2002 the government may pass Orders to control the export of strategic goods, technology transfer, the provision of technical assistance overseas and the trade in military-rated equipment between overseas countries • the Export Control Order 2008, SI 2008/3231: this Order provides for the control of exports from the UK of listed military, paramilitary and certain other goods, technology and software. Such exports will require a licence—see Practice Note Export controls—requirement for an export licence • Council Regulation (EC) 428/2009 (EU Dual Use Regulation): the EU Dual Use Regulation also establishes controls over the exports of listed goods, software and technology considered to be ‘dual use’, ie can be used for both civil and military purposes. Of most

For ‘traditional’ software licence situations, the user/licensee downloads a copy onto their own server and requires a copyright licence to do so. In a pure Software as a Service (SaaS) scenario, no such copying or downloading is needed as the software is hosted on the supplier’s servers and accessed remotely. This Q&A focuses solely on the position in respect of software to the extent it is used on a SaaS basis. Certain SaaS solutions also require that some software is downloaded by the user and installed locally on their machine in order for the solution to function. The application of the legislation to any locally installed software should be separately evaluated in the ‘traditional’ way and is not addressed in this Q&A. Sections 50A–50C of the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1988 (CDPA 1988) provide