Fraudsters can target any individual, company or institution which holds funds, so everybody and anybody in some way can be vulnerable to a targeted attack. Firms need to ensure that any money they send from their client account goes to the intended recipient. Clients need to feel confident that any money they send to a firm goes to the correct account. This Q&A considers the question: what checks should you make to ensure you and your clients aren't victims

Repudiatory breach The general rule is that a party to a contract must perform precisely what they agreed to do. Failure to do so constitutes a breach of contract. For further information, see Practice Note: Termination for breach of contract. A ‘repudiatory breach’ is a breach of contract that goes to the very core of the contract and gives the innocent party the right to treat the contract as being disregarded and entitling the innocent party to refuse to be bound by its terms. For further information, see Practice Note: Repudiation of contract. It is difficult to demonstrate circumstances which may amount to a repudiatory breach of contract, as what this will vary with each contract on the basis of the varying obligations.

Nominated officer The nominated officer (also referred to as the Money Laundering Reporting Officer, or MLRO) is the person nominated to receive and consider suspicious activity reports (SARs) under the Terrorism Act 2000 (TA 2000) and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002). They are also expected to make external SARs to the National Crime Agency (NCA). Not all organisations have to appoint a nominated officer. You must appoint a nominated officer if the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 (MLR 2017), SI 2017/692 apply to your business, ie you are: • a relevant person • acting in the course of business in the UK • not subject to one of the very narrowly drawn exclusions in MLR 2017, SI 2017/692, reg 15 If the MLR 2017 do not apply to your organisation,

Collective redundancy consultation By virtue of section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULR(C)A 1992), where an employer is proposing to dismiss 20 or more employees as redundant at one establishment within a 90-day period, they must consult with the appropriate representatives (as defined by TULR(C)A 1992, s 188(1B)) of all of the persons who may be considered for redundancy. That consultation must take place no less than a specified time before the first of the dismissals take effect, that time depending on the number of proposed redundancies (30 if fewer than 100; 45 if 100 or more). Employers must also inform the Insolvency Service, Redundancy Payments Service by Form HR1 by the same time period. TULR(C)A 1992, s 188(4) sets out the information which must be disclosed to the employee representatives,

A reduction in the employee's working hours will usually be a variation of the terms of the employment contract. There may be exceptions to this, eg in the case of a zero-hours contract where the employer has the right to vary hours of work. A purported variation of a contract of employment that is, or will be, transferred under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE 2006) is void 'if the sole or principal reason for the variation is the transfer'. However, a variation is permitted in two situations: • where: ◦ the sole or principal reason for the variation is an economic, technical, or organisational (ETO) reason entailing changes in the workforce, and ◦ the employer and employee agree to the variation • where the terms of that contract permit the employer to make such a variation If the terms of the employment contract permit the employer to make the reduction in working hours,

Before the Working Time Regulations 1998 (WTR 1998), SI 1998/1833 came into force, some workers (often low-paid, casual or temporary workers) were not given paid holiday. When WTR 1998, SI 1998/1833 came into force, some employers argued that the existing basic rate of pay for such workers included pay for annual leave under WTR 1998, SI 1998/1833, ie that holiday pay was 'rolled-up' into their normal pay for work done, or increased their workers' basic pay, stating that the increase was paid holiday entitlement. However, rolled-up holiday pay is a disincentive to take holiday because a worker receives

Possible claims against employer in respect of ill-health early retirement Possible claims against an employer in respect of ill-health early retirement may include: • breach of contract: • an employer is under a contractual duty to act in good faith as regards the possibility of early retirement under its pension scheme if it has one offering such an option. The duty means that the employer should take medical advice and form an opinion as to whether the particular employee meets the conditions for early retirement due to ill-health • the employer is also obliged under the duty of implied trust and confidence to exercise its powers to consider early retirement due to ill-health • unfair dismissal: consideration of the possibility of an ill-health early retirement before dismissing is relevant to the overall fairness of a dismissal • claims

The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (the Use Classes Order), SI 1987/764 puts uses of land and buildings into broad categories set out in the schedule of of the Use Classes Order. Each category is known as a ‘use class’. With effect from 1 September 2020, the Use Classes Order, SI 1987/764, was significantly amended in England. The Use Classes Order also list a series of uses which are expressly stated not to fall within any of the use classes set out in the Use Classes Order. These uses are commonly known as ‘sui generis uses’. Additionally, there are other uses which are not in a specific use class of the Use Classes Order, and which do not expressly constitute sui generis uses. Such uses simply fall outside of the Use Classes Order. In Rugby Football Union, the court noted that the Use Classes Order, is effectively

Please see the Encyclopaedia of Forms and Precedents section: Basic transfers and assignments of the whole of leasehold land. Please

The term and rent of the new lease granted under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (LRHUDA 1993) are fixed by the LRHUDA 1993 itself. All the other terms are, prima facie, to be the same as in the existing lease as they applied on the day the section 42 notice, ie the notice of claim, was given. There are, however, several ways in which the terms under the new lease may differ. The first is by reason of LRHUDA 1993, s 57(6) the parties are free to agree different terms and it may be that the LRHUDA 1993 represents an opportunity to update an old fashioned or unsatisfactory lease by substituting one in a wholly new form. If the parties do agree new terms then it should be borne in mind that the court has the power to re-open the agreement on the application of the tenant

An energy performance certificate (EPC) is required: • when an existing building is sold or rented out • when a building under construction is finished • after refurbishment when there are greater or fewer separate parts of the building and the modification includes the provision or extension of fixed heating, air conditioning or mechanical ventilation systems Page

This question raises the issue of the rights adjoining owners owe one another where a fence separates their lands. The location of boundaries on the plans filed at HM Land Registry are ‘general boundaries’ which do not determine their exact line (sections 60(1)–(2) of the Land Registration Act 2002 (LRA 2002)). Disputes can quickly arise therefore as to where a fence should be and who owns it. There is often felt to be a presumption that the posts from which a fence is hung are situated on the land of the person who owns the fence with the result that they own the fence as well. It will often be a strong presumption, but a court may well have regard to other evidence