The rights of residuary beneficiaries to interim payments prior to the settling of any liability to IHT Under section 44 of the Administration of Estates Act 1925 (AEA 1925), personal representatives (PRs) have at least a year from the date of death before beneficiaries can call on them to distribute any part of the estate. While the estate is being administered, the ownership in the deceased's unadministered assets lies in the PRs for the purposes of administration, without any distinction between legal and equitable interests. No beneficiary in the meantime, whether under the deceased's Will or intestacy has any proprietary interest in any particular asset comprised in the unadministered estate. The beneficiary's entitlement during the administration is to a chose in action, ie the right to require

We have assumed that the senior management position in question involves performing a Senior Management Function at a regulated financial services firm subject to the Senior Managers & Certification Regime. The Senior Managers & Certification Regime (SM&CR) applies to banks, building societies, credit unions and Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA)-regulated broker dealers, insurers, and Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) solo-regulated firms. For an overview of the SM&CR, see Practice Note: SM&CR—one minute guide. Under Part V of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA 2000), individuals who will be carrying out certain key roles, known as ‘controlled functions’, at authorised firms, must obtain approval from the FCA or, where relevant, the PRA before doing so. Such individuals, once approved, are referred to as ‘approved persons’. For SM&CR firms, the Senior Managers Regime (SMR)

Reference is often made to ‘put’ option agreements and ‘call’ option agreements. A call option agreement is one where the buyer (grantee) can call upon the seller (grantor) to sell a property (or part of it) to the grantee. A put option is one in which the landowner can call upon the grantee to purchaser the property, see Practice Note: Options to purchase property—Scotland. When an option over land is granted, the grantee has a contractual right to exercise the powers conferred to them by the option agreement. These powers most commonly involve the right to purchase the land: • at a particular point in time, or • within a certain time-frame at • a price, or • a pricing strategy (such as the market value of the land at the time of purchase) determined at the time the option was agreed. Grantees often pay a substantial fee for the option itself, particularly if

Relevant considerations may include: • employee/worker status • Acas Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures • other possible claims by workers • grievance procedures Employee and worker status An employer may wish to consider whether the individual has been correctly categorised as a worker, and not also an employee, for employment law purposes. Detailed information on the definition of ‘employee’ for unfair dismissal purposes under the Employment Rights Act 1996 can be found in Practice Note: Employee status. For information on worker status, see Practice Note: Worker status. Note, however, that application of a grievance policy to a worker is also one of the factors that may be taken into account by an employment tribunal in determining employee status. See the section ‘Other terms consistent with contract of employment’ of Practice Note: Employee status. Even if the employer considers the individual

This Q&A focuses on the risks to a landlord in a scenario whereby the landlord seeks to prevent a tenant access to demised premises as a result of the fact that the tenant has to cross over land already in the ownership of the landlord in order to reach the said demise. It would appear to be correct to say that both the demised premises and the land retained by the landlord were both in common ownership prior to the demise of one parcel of land to the tenant. Put in another way, it is the landlord who has superior title to both parcels of land. Where two tenements have been in the common

Unlawful payments—general position When a company enters into liquidation or administration, certain transactions entered into by the company prior to the opening of the insolvency proceedings can be reviewed by the liquidator/administrator and, if the circumstances are right, set aside by the court. This can pose a risk to creditors, who may find themselves in the unenviable situation where they later have to refund a company cash despite being legitimately owed that cash, and fall to be an unsecured creditor for that amount in a subsequent liquidation or administration, hoping to secure a dividend together with other unsecured creditors. In these circumstances, the claims that an administrator or liquidator may be able to bring will include: • transactions at an undervalue • preferences • transactions to defraud creditors • property dispositions after the commencement of the winding up The risk of these transactions being set aside subsequently is greater

In answering this Q&A, we have limited our research to cover data protection, defamation, restrictive agreements in competition law and the Employment Relations Act  1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010, SI 2010/493. In conducting our research we have assumed that the organisation is not a public authority or otherwise subject to any public procurement regime. Data protection If the information within the list relates to a living individual, the Data Protection Act 1998 (the DPA 1998) may apply. The DPA 1998, governs the processing of personal data in the UK and it obliges those handling such data to comply with eight data protection principles. For more information, see Practice Note: Data protection—background and key definitions and in particular the sections on Data, Personal data, Processing and Relevant filing system. If the DPA 1998 applies to the internal list, we refer you to the following

This Q&A covers to business to business relationships and contracts under English law and focuses on the risk of issuing a purchase order creating a legal contract prior to signature of a formal contract. Does issuing a purchase order create a legal relationship? In practice, its necessary to examine the client’s contracting process from start to finish, the documents which are issued and conversations which are had; and then, on the facts, identify at which point and upon what terms a contract has been formed. For further information on contract formation and which may impact on your analysis, see the following Practice Notes: • Forming enforceable contracts—authority • Contracts required to be in writing For information on incorporating terms into contracts, see the following Practice Notes: • Standard terms and conditions—incorporation—Battle of the forms • Contract interpretation—battle of the forms—on whose terms have parties contracted? • Standard terms and conditions—incorporation—Course of dealing As part of the analysis described above, it will be necessary

For information on dealing with grievance issues, generally, see Practice Notes: • Dealing with a grievance • General requirements for discipline and grievance procedures • Acas disciplinary and grievance code—procedural requirements For dealing with grievance issues specifically set out in this Q&A, as a starting point, the following may be considered: • the contractual status of the employer’s grievance procedure • the application and requirements of the Acas Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures (Acas Code) • the nature of the grievance in question and the broader implications

As Practice Note: Buying a business from an insolvency practitioner states: ‘An insolvency practitioner will argue that because they have limited knowledge of the company and its assets, they are not able to procure that the company gives representations and warranties or to provide a disclosure letter qualifying such statements. An insolvency practitioner will also rely on their lack of knowledge to justify their refusal to accept personal liability under any contracts to be entered into (for instance, personal liability pursuant to further assurance provisions). While it is acceptable to negotiate down the scope of the exclusion of the insolvency

The headlease may require the terms of any underlease to be in materially the same form as the headlease save as to rent etc. Such an obligation is usually imposed by express covenant on the headtenant, while the undertenant enters into covenants in respect of the sub-demised property corresponding to those in the head lease; and on either side the covenants may be accompanied

An award under the Party Wall etc Act 1996 (PWA 1996) is 'recoverable summarily as a civil debt' (PWA 1996, s 17). Unfortunately for a party wishing to act quickly on the award, this does not mean that it is enforceable as if it were a court order (Zissis v Lukomski). Instead, the procedure is either by way of: • complaint to the magistrates'