Solvency II: Corporate governance requirements An overview of the corporate governance requirements of Solvency II is set out in Practice Notes: Solvency II—pillar 2: governance, risk management and supervisory review and Prudential requirements for UK insurers—Pillar 2 and Pillar 3 requirements. These requirements include: • a requirement for the administrative, management or supervisory body of an undertaking to have ultimate responsibility for its compliance with the Solvency II regime (Article 40 of Solvency II) • general governance requirements (Article 41 of Solvency II), including: ◦ an effective system of governance which provides for sound and prudent management of the business, proportionate to the nature, scale and complexity of the operations of the undertaking and subject to regular internal review, and including an adequate transparent organisational structure with a clear allocation and appropriate segregation of responsibilities and an effective system for ensuring the transmission of information ◦ written policies in relation to at least risk management, internal control, internal audit

Costs budgeting Each party normally prepares one costs budget, seeks to agree it with the other party and, if not agreed, makes submissions at the case management conference supporting the costs budget it has produced. However, where a case involves multiple parties or claims there are no specific Civil Procedure Rules provisions on how to approach costs budgets. The rules for costs budgeting are set out in Part 3 at CPR 3.12–CPR 3.18 and Practice Direction, CPR PD 3E. The court may order a bespoke system of costs management including how to deal with costs budgets. Caw law The case of CIP Properties v Galliford Try Infrastructure involved a defendant which had brought a Part 20 claim. The Queen’s Bench Division (Technology

Pursuant to Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010) SI 2010/2955, 28.2, the rule set out in Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR) CPR 44.2(2) that the unsuccessful party pays the costs of the successful party is disapplied in all family proceedings including those relating to child arrangements and parental responsibility. An order for one party to pay the costs of the other in child arrangements proceedings is rare, but the court does have the discretion to make such an order. As explained by Wilson J in Sutton London Borough Council v Davis (No 2), the court is reluctant for a concern about costs orders to prevent parties from pursuing arguments they genuinely consider to be in the best interests of the child. The court also does not wish to sour yet further the relations between parents by awarding costs to one: 'Where

What are the costs recovery provisions in relation to mediations? The costs are usually split equally between the parties. This includes the cost of the mediator, venue and catering. Exceptionally, where one party is unable or unwilling to pay its share, the other party may do so, provided the mediator and non-paying party are satisfied that this will not affect the mediator’s impartiality. The cost of engaging the mediator generally covers a certain amount of preparation or reading time by the mediator in advance of the mediation, and up to eight hours on the day of the mediation, whether they are acting via video or in person. Over the past year, the majority of mediations have taken place remotely (see: Remote access mediation—checklist). This has enabled parties to save on the financial and time costs of travel, venue hire and catering. This has been a particularly beneficial development for cross-border disputes involving participants who would otherwise have to travel overseas, and for UK disputes involving people who would otherwise

This Q&A considers the data protection implications of a client recording a solicitor and another client without their consent, and subsequently providing that recording to their own solicitor, presumably to take advice on the content of the legal advice given. It does not cover wider issues, such as the admissibility of the evidence, professional obligations and legal professional privilege. Application of the UK GDPR apply to voice recordings A voice recording is likely to constitute personal data under Article 4(1) of Assimilated Regulation (EU) 2016/679, the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR), because it is information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person. The UK GDPR applies when personal data is ‘processed’. This covers most ways of working with data. In theory it might be possible for a recording to exist from which it is impossible to identify the person or people recorded, but in most cases you should proceed

In answering this Q&A we have limited our research to cover the position under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA 1998) (not the General Data Protection Regulation, breach of contract, confidentiality or any other laws). Disclosure of personal data For the background and key terms, see Practice Notes: Key definitions under the DPA 1998 and Data protection principles under the DPA 1998 which outlines the starting point for the consideration of personal data in compliance with the DPA 1998. A data subject is a living individual who is the subject of personal data, ie data from which he can be identified. For key definitions under the DPA 1998, see Practice Note: Key definitions under the DPA 1998. It follows that the company will not be a ‘data subject’ so will not have remedies under the DPA 1998 (although it may have other remedies under different laws or contract). For the director to have rights under

When processing personal data during disciplinary proceedings, the employer will need to comply with its obligations under Assimilated Regulation (EU) 2016/679, the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018). The first step will be to determine whether the employer is processing personal data only, or whether the processing also involves special category data and/or personal data regarding criminal convictions and offences. The key obligations falling on controllers under the UK GDPR (among others) include ensuring that: • the data protection principles set out in Article 5 of UK GDPR are complied with • where personal data are processed, a lawful condition under Article 6(1) UK GDPR applies • where special category data are processed, in addition to an Article 6(1) condition, a specific condition for processing under Article 9(2) of UK GDPR applies • where personal data relating

What types of data are likely to be collected? Connected cars or partially or fully autonomous vehicles (AVs) may collect data from numerous sources, both in relation to the vehicle itself including location, performance, failures, driving or parking offences and accidents, as well as the vehicle’s environment including: • data from the embedded road infrastructure • the state of the roads • the weather • surrounding vehicles and nearby amenities They will also process data regarding the vehicle’s occupants, such as personal identification information, preferences for routes or vehicles or regular pick up and drop off addresses. The ICO has already confirmed that data collected by the vehicles, whether in its raw form or when combined with other sources of data, will likely constitute ‘personal data’ for the purposes of the Data Protection Act 1998 and may in some cases amount to ‘sensitive’ personal data. The technology offers a number of options for managing connectivity within the vehicle; embedded devices (where the processing power and connectivity come

(1) What are the differences between joint controllers and controllers in common under the GDPR? Definition under the Data Protection Act 1998 In summary, under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA 1998), 'data controller’ is defined in DPA 1998, s 1(1) as a ‘person who (either alone or jointly or in common with other persons) determines the purposes for which and the manner in which any personal data are, or are to be, processed’. The Guide to data protection from the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) states that, in relation to data controllers, the term ‘jointly’ is used where two or more persons (usually organisations) act together to decide the purpose and manner of any data processing. The term ‘in common’ applies where two or more persons share a pool of personal data that they process independently

While two distinct statutory codes now operate for the provision of homelessness assistance in England and Wales (under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996 (HA 1996), and under Part 2 of the Housing (Wales) Act 2014 (H(W)A 2014)), the framework for review and appeal remains broadly consistent and is based on an initial internal right of review, exercisable within 21 days of any relevant reviewable decision, followed by a further right of appeal to the County Court, on a point of law, against any decision on review (or absent a review decision the original one). Therefore, the key differences relate more to the substance of the decision or duty under scrutiny, rather than any divergence in procedure between the two codes. The established position in England is under HA 1996, s 202, which gives a homeless

Disclaimer This Q&A is based on the draft Criminal Finances Bill (CFB) 2017 as at 23 April 2017, at which point it had not received Royal Assent. For information on the current stage of the Bill in Parliament, see Practice Note: Criminal Finances Act 2017—progress through Parliament [Archived]. Relevant Bill documents can be accessed via the Parliament website here. The three steps The two offences are (i) the domestic and (ii) the foreign tax evasion offences. Both offences have three steps that apply, which require that: • there is tax evasion by a taxpayer • the criminal facilitation of the tax evasion by an 'associated person' of the relevant body who is acting in that capacity. This requires deliberate intent to commit the offence—negligent or careless actions resulting in tax evasion will not be caught, and • the relevant body failed to prevent its representative from committing the criminal

A share purchase agreement (SPA) and an asset purchase agreement (APA) will typically include warranties and indemnities. The concept of caveat emptor (the buyer beware) still largely applies in a share sale and asset sale and is largely unfettered by statute. The practice has therefore developed for the buyer to include a full set of warranties, which are designed to produce sufficient information about the target company or target business (as appropriate) to enable it to decide whether it is a sensible proposition and also to provide redress if the target turns out not to be as the seller had led the buyer to believe. Warranties A warranty is a contractual statement or assurance given by a seller to a buyer that a certain state of affairs exists. If a warranty is breached, there will be no right of rescission (ie the right to restore the parties to the position they would have been in had the agreement never been entered into)