Like a general partnership, a limited partnership is not a legal entity but is a relationship between partners, ie a limited partnership established in England does not have separate legal personality akin to that of a body corporate. Section 4 of the Limited Partnerships Act 1907 defines a limited partnership as consisting of: one or more persons called ‘general partners’ who are jointly and severally liable for all debts and obligations of the partnership, and one or more persons called ‘limited partners’. For further information on limited partnerships and the differences between limited partners and general partners, see Practice Note: The nature of a limited partnership and its legal framework and Q&A: How does a limited partnership make decisions on the conduct of its business? Typically, a limited partnership when established will have in place a limited partnership agreement (LPA) which

We refer you to Practice Note: FCA and PRA enforcement essentials—preventing a referral to enforcement. In particular, section ‘How is a breach identified?’ sets out the scope of firms’ obligations under the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) rules to keep regulators informed of relevant information. In brief, all firms and approved persons have a duty to deal with the FCA in an open and co-operative way pursuant to Principle 11 for Businesses (Relations with regulators) (see PRIN 2.1.1R), Statement of Principle 4 for Approved Persons (see APER 2.1A.3R) and Rule 3 of the Individual Conduct Rules, COCON 2.1.3R, and to disclose any information of which the FCA requires notice, such as issues of potential regulatory concern under SUP 15. This is the minimum standard that the FCA will require of any authorised firm and a failure to meet these requirements

A company’s people with significant control (PSC) register must never be empty. The company must, using the prescribed wording, update its register as regards any general circumstances or investigative steps that it is currently engaged in. This may be as simple as confirming that there are no registrable PSCs or RLEs in relation to the company. It is therefore likely that any register should have an open section in which to record such information. Once a particular PSC or RLE comes forward or is otherwise identified (or being actively investigated), it would seem appropriate to open up a ledger or account against that individual or entity's name. Information required under CA 2006, s 790K can then be entered accordingly, as can any other official wording as to the investigation or enforcement process in relation to that individual or entity: • Required particulars (including type of control): ◦ PSCs: name, date of birth, nationality, country or state (or part of UK) where the individual is usually resident, service address,

This summarises the trading disclosure requirements of an overseas company carrying on business in the UK pursuant

The statutory scheme of apprenticeship agreements (based on a structure of recognised apprenticeship frameworks), brought into force in 2011 under the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 (ASCLA 2009) (apprenticeship agreements scheme), is being phased out in England (from 26 May 2015 onwards) and replaced with a scheme based on ‘approved English apprenticeships'. The provisions in the ASCLA 2009 relating to the apprenticeship agreements scheme continues to operate, however, in Wales. Practice Note: Apprenticeships contains a detailed description of the difference between the two schemes, see the sections headed: • Apprenticeships frameworks and standards

We have limited our research to cover springboard relief/injunctions in patent proceedings. The term ‘springboard relief’, in relation to patents, refers to an injunction which is designed to deprive a defendant of a commercial advantage obtained in the period after a patent expires by infringing before expiry—known as a ‘springboard’. For more information, see Practice Note: Remedies in patent proceedings. In Smith & Nephew Plc v Convatec Technologies Inc, an injunction was requested that would have prevented acts which would never have constituted infringement of the patent as amended.

Service of the claim form in Scotland is governed by the CJJA 1982 and the CPR provisions are found in CPR 6.32(1). Permission is not required to serve a claim form in Scotland if certain criteria are met, being: • the claim is the type of claim that falls within the CJJA, and • there are no other proceedings involving in the same claim in any other part of the UK One of three additional requirements must also be met. One of these is that the defendant is a party to an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the English courts. That exclusive jurisdiction clause must meet the requirements set out in the CJJA 1982, Sch 4, Section

Corporate Crime analysis: This case involves the suicide of a 15-year-old child (‘Grace’) in a care home (‘Farm House’) where Grace had been placed under a section 31 Order of the Children Act 1989 (‘Care Order’). The senior coroner had decided not to hold an Article 2 inquest, albeit conducting a wide non-Article 2 inquest, taking into view that there was no practical difference between the two in relation to scope. The key issue is whether the case fell within the categories of cases where there is an enhanced investigative duty because of a legitimate ground to suspect state responsibility by way of breach of an Article 2 obligation. The case also considered whether a children’s home is a public authority under the Human Rights Act 1998. The case assessed whether there was a causal link between the systemic failure of the Local Authority (LA) and Grace’s death. Finally, the case assessed the effect of Article 2 on the scope of the inquest. The claimant claimed that the senior coroner erred in law and judicially reviewed the coroner’s decision. The claim was dismissed. Written by Dr Samrat Sengupta, pupil barrister at Fraser Chambers and Dr Anton Van Dellen, barrister at Fraser Chambers.

There are a number of different types of director. The definition of director in the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) is not exhaustive; CA 2006, s 250 broadly defines a director as 'any person occupying the position of director, by whatever name called'. Accordingly, in order to determine whether a person is a director, it may be necessary to examine the function of the person, the company's articles of association (and any other constitutional documents) and the terms of any contract between the person and the company. Within the definition of director, case law has established that there are two categories of director: de jure and de facto directors. A de jure director is a person that has been validly appointed as a director in accordance with the company's articles of association and CA 2006, whereas, a de facto director is a person that has not been formally appointed as a director, because the procedural or formal requirements set out in the company’s articles have not been followed or satisfied, but the person undertakes

This Q&A assumes that although the rent is expressed to be payable by the tenant in euros, it will be received by the landlord in England and so will be converted into pounds sterling in the landlord's hands There is no requirement, so far as we are aware, that the rent payable for a UK property must be reserved in pounds sterling. Where rent is reserved in another currency (which in this case is euros), the amount actually received by the landlord

For the purposes of this Q&A, we have assumed that the trustees and the beneficiaries are all resident in the UK for tax purposes. When trust property ceases to be relevant property, it becomes subject to a charge to inheritance tax (IHT). This charge is known as either: • the exit charge, or • the proportionate charge Practice Note: Relevant property trusts—the exit charge explains how to work out the amount of tax payable when an exit charge arises. It applies to occasions of charge which arise on or after 18 November 2015, which was the

Practice Note: Cost of care—personal injury claims explains that once the appropriate model of care has been established, the court moves to an objective assessment of the reasonable costs of the regime. The appropriate hourly rate is ultimately a question of fact. However, the following considerations are often relevant: • the type of carer (paid or gratuitous) • the nature of the care • where the claimant lives Note that the costs of past care may be a useful guide to future cost, although the court may feel that a reasonable, though cheaper,