The untraced driver Where the driver of a vehicle who causes an accident cannot be identified, eg following a ‘hit and run’ accident, the claimant should apply directly to the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB). In accordance with the provisions of the relevant agreement, the MIB will compensate the victim of an accident involving an untraced driver for: • injuries • death • property damage The Untraced Drivers’ Agreement, dated 2017, applies to accidents occurring on or after 1 March 2017. For accidents occurring on or after 14 February 2003 and before 1 March 2017 the Untraced Drivers' Agreement 2003 applies. Before that, claims involving untraced drivers were covered by the Untraced Drivers' Agreement 1996. There were supplementary agreements in 2008, 2011, 2013 and 2015. The MIB has a helpful Correlation Table which sets out the difference with the 2003 and 2017 Agreements. In Cameron, a claimant who had been injured in a hit-and-run collision, where the car was

Material obtained by an investigator which is relevant to the investigation, but which does not actually form part of the case for the prosecution against the accused.

Pensions analysis: At the Autumn Budget, the Chancellor announced that most unused pension funds and death benefits would be brought into a person’s estate for inheritance tax purposes from 6 April 2027. To prepare pension schemes for this, HMRC launched a consultation on the administrative processes that this extension of inheritance tax may require. David Everett, partner at Lane, Clark and Peacock, reports on this development.

Local Government analysis: This was an attempt by the defendant to obtain summary judgment striking out six grounds of challenge brought against a Traffic Regulation Order (‘TRO’). Because challenges under paragraph 35 of Schedule 9 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (RTRA 1984) proceed straight to a substantive hearing (unlike judicial review), the defendant applied for summary judgment as an attempt to incorporate in a permission-like stage to avoid the cost of a full hearing. The approach was only partially successful (only 1/6 grounds were struck out), and the court made pertinent observations about the appropriateness of such an approach. The case has two areas of relevance. The first is the procedural findings about the nature of RTRA 1984, Sch 9, para 35challenges (including when the court will quash an Order). The second is the findings on the grounds (particularly G1 and G2) which could have wider relevance in terms of ‘reasons’ but with the caveat that the Court was applying a much lower test of success at this stage. Written by Piers Riley-Smith, highways barrister at Kings Chambers.

Dispute Resolution analysis: This unusual decision demonstrates the court’s approach to rectification claims and the admissible evidence to support them, noting the complexities and dangers of both oral and documentary evidence when deployed to establish subjective questions about what people thought, understood, or intended at a time some distance hence. It is also a worthy reminder to parties to thoroughly read and consider their draft agreements before they sign them.

Law360: More than a hundred unvaccinated care home workers fired during the COVID-19 pandemic have failed to convince the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) that they should be able to sue the government for discrimination alongside their former employers.

FORTHCOMING CHANGE relating to the modernisation of stamp taxes on shares framework: Stamp duty and SDRT will, in 2027, be replaced with a single, self-assessed tax on transfers of securities, the securities transfer tax (STT) (formerly referred to as the securities transfer charge or STC), that will be paid (and reported) through electronic transfer systems such as CREST or, where appropriate, a new online portal. Draft legislation for the STT was published on 13 July 2026, along with explanatory notes, a policy paper and the outcome of the higher rate 1.5% stamp tax consultation. Subject to exemptions, the STT draft legislation includes a main charge of 0.5% for agreements to transfer chargeable securities to another person for consideration in money or money’s worth and, for transfers to a clearance service (CS) or depositary receipt issuer (DRI), a higher-rate charge of 1.5%. The main charge arises when an agreement is made or, in the case of a conditional agreement, when the conditions are satisfied, although, where the agreement is not electronic, the STT

An environment of economic uncertainty (eg as a result of high inflation and/or economic instability) often leads to cost cutting, not just in the form of releasing obligations under contracts and settling legal disputes, but also buyers trying to extricate themselves from transactions, for instance where a business or asset acquisition that looked attractive to a buyer a couple of years or months ago is suddenly much less appealing. But unwinding an acquisition is not straightforward, and it can lead to unintended tax consequences if not carefully managed. This Practice Note discusses some of the tax issues that may arise if a business or asset sale is unwound after it has been signed and some of the assets and liabilities have been transferred. This Practice Note assumes that the buyer and seller are not connected and are both UK tax resident and large corporate entities. For information on the tax considerations relevant to unwinding a share sale, see Practice Note: Unwinding a share sale—key tax consequences. For information on

This Practice Note looks at the evolution of case law determining the extent to which trustees of a trust, including an occupational pension scheme, can set aside documents which they have previously entered into on the grounds that some form of mistake undermined their execution of the document. While this note looks at the principles as they apply in a pension scheme context, a number of the cases arise from the practice of using trust structures to avoid or save tax. Rather than setting aside a document on the grounds of mistake, it may be possible to correct that mistake retrospectively through the equitable remedy of rectification. For further information on rectification, see Practice Notes: Amending mistakes and rectification in pensions and Rectification—the key cases for pension lawyers. Hastings-Bass The facts The case of Hastings-Bass v Inland Revenue Commissioners arose when the trustees of a trust settlement exercised a power of advancement under that trust to transfer some funds from that trust to another trust (the Transfer). Their

When a trustee makes a mistake, it is important to remember that there are a few remedies available: rectification, the doctrine of mistake and the so-called rule in Hastings-Bass (Rule). This Practice Note examines the Rule under which the court has set aside decisions of trustees of family trusts on the basis that the trustee's decision-making process was flawed in a material respect. For information on rectification and mistake, see Practice Notes: Rectification and Trusts—construction, rectification and mistake. Many cases that have invoked the Rule involved occupational pension schemes. For information on the development of the Rule specifically in pension cases, see Practice Note: Unwinding pension trustee decisions due to mistake—Hastings-Bass and Pitt v Holt (subject to subscription). Hastings-Bass The facts In Hastings-Bass v Inland Revenue Commissioners (Re Hastings-Bass (Deceased)) the trustees of a settlement (the 1947 settlement) exercised a power of advancement to transfer funds to another settlement (the 1957 settlement). Their aim was to reduce the amount of estate duty that would be payable on the death of

Used in the law of succession to indicate that there are factors that mean a beneficiary should not inherit.

The LexisNexis Financial Services Practical Guidance team is hosting a virtual event on Wednesday 29 March 2023 at 1pm on financial services enforcement trends in 2023 and beyond. We will be bringing together an expert panel of senior contentious regulatory lawyers to discuss the latest trends in FCA and PRA investigations and enforcement. In this special one-hour session, we will be joined by Guy Wilkes (Partner, Mishcon de Reya LLP), Sara George (Partner, Sidley Austin LLP), Robert Dedman (Partner, CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP) and Sara Cody (Counsel, Linklaters LLP). The panel will address key themes in enforcement such as financial crime, operational resilience and the FCA’s upcoming Consumer Duty, in addition to considering the implications of the FCA’s evolving approach to enforcement and discipline, for financial services firms and the individuals within them.