‘Maladministration’ is not defined by statute but is usually thought to include something that happened in connection with action taken by or on behalf of one of the authorities subject to investigation, or being action

This Q&A considers the concept of privilege as a whole, although there are different types of privilege which may be relevant in the context of dispute resolution. This Q&A focuses on the general definition of privilege. In English law, special protection is afforded to communications between lawyers (and, in certain circumstances, third parties) and their clients. This is on the basis that there exists, at the centre of that relationship, an obligation of confidence which the legal adviser owes his client, either in respect of confidential communications passed between them, or in relation to documents which may later form part of that party’s ‘brief’ in adversarial litigation. This special protection, enabling a client to retain confidentiality in relation to certain communications, tends to be known as 'legal professional privilege' (LPP) and is a central principle for the administration of justice. LPP is an umbrella term which encompasses legal advice privilege and litigation privilege. A good working definition of legal advice privilege is given in Three Rivers District

CPA 1987 Part I Part I of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 (CPA 1987) imposes strict liability on producers of defective products for the damage caused by those defects. Under CPA 1987, s 1(2) ‘producer’, in relation to a product, means— ‘(a) the person who manufactured it; (b) in the case of a substance which has not been manufactured but has been won or abstracted, the person who won or abstracted it; (c) in the case of a product which has not been manufactured, won or abstracted but essential characteristics of which are attributable to an industrial or other process having been carried out (for example, in relation to agricultural produce), the person who carried out that process’ Under CPA 1987, s 2(2), liability attaches to: ‘(a) the producer of the product; (b) any person who, by putting his name on the product or using a trade mark or other distinguishing mark in relation to the product, has held himself out to be the producer

As a general comment, share incentive schemes are normally introduced in order to encourage employees to remain working in the business rather than to encourage them to retire. However, a share plan will often provide that a participant’s awards will receive a more beneficial treatment when they leave due to retirement (so that, for example, they may be permitted to exercise some of their share options when they leave), as compared to if they had left in other circumstances (such as when they simply resign—in which case it is more likely that the share plan will specify that their options will lapse without being capable of exercise). In response to the first part of this Q&A: where the share scheme does provide for a particular treatment for a retiree’s awards, it is important to check the specific terms of the award in

Hamann v Finanzamt Hamburg-Eimsbuttel discusses what is meant by transport in the context of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes—Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (the Sixth Directive). The Court of Justice adopts a broad interpretation of the term ‘form of transport’ finding that ocean-going sailing yachts that are used by their hirers for the practice of the sport of sailing are 'forms of transport' within the meaning of Art 9(2)(d) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (see paragraphs 16 to 22 of the judgment). The Court agreed with the

The expression 'electronic communications' is not defined in the otherwise quite extensive interpretation section of Schedule 2 to the Telecommunications Act 1984 (TA 1984). The schedule contains the code which sets out the rights and obligations which are granted to and imposed upon those who provide networks for the provision of such communications. As it contains no statutory definition of the expression, one has instead to divine its meaning from the company it keeps in both the TA 1984 and the Communications Act 2003 (CA 2003). A useful starting point is the CA 2003, s 32(1)(a). This provides a series of definitions, some of which are adopted in the TA 1984, Sch 2. One such definition is 'electronic communications network' which in both Acts means 'a transmission system for the conveyance, by the use of electrical, magnetic or electro-magnetic

Section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990) defines ‘agriculture’ as including ‘horticulture, fruit growing, seed growing, dairy farming, the breeding and keeping of livestock (including any creature kept for the production of food, wool, skins or fur, or for the purpose

Pursuant to section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA 1990), it is an offence to carry out any activity which contravenes EPA 1990, s 33(1) or to breach any condition of an environmental permit (formerly waste management licence). The sentencing powers pursuant to EPA 1990, s 33 are split into two categories (see ‘The general rule and A relevant offence), dependent upon the offence committed. The general rule The general rule is that, pursuant to EPA 1990, s 33(8), a person who commits an offence under EPA 1990, s 33(6) shall be liable to either: • on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding

The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (GPDO), SI 2015/596, Sch 2 Pt 2, Class A grants permitted development rights in relation to the ‘erection, construction, maintenance, improvement or alteration of a gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure’, subject to certain conditions and exceptions. Development is not permitted by Class A if— ‘…(a) the height of any gate, fence, wall or means of enclosure erected or constructed adjacent to a highway used by vehicular traffic would, after the carrying out of the development, exceed— (i) for a school, 2 metres above ground level, provided that any part of the gate, fence, wall or means of enclosure which is more than 1 metre above ground level does not create an obstruction to the view of persons using the highway as to

This Q&A assumes that the executor is one of several personal representatives (PRs) and has an interest in the estate beside the executorship. Intermeddling Intermeddling occurs where a person handles the deceased’s assets and/or holds themselves out as an executor. There is no formal test for what constitutes intermeddling, but the threshold is not high. For examples where the court has found intermeddling, see Holder v Holder and Re Stevens. In considering whether a particular act amounts to intermeddling, it is often useful to consider whether that act, had it been carried out by someone who had not been not nominated as an executor, would be likely to make such a person liable as an executor

There is no single or universal definition of ‘snagging works’ (or the term ‘snagging list’ which is commonly used). The term ‘snagging’ is widely used in the construction industry and is often taken to mean minor defective or outstanding works which a contractor needs to address. It can be used in different contexts, eg to refer to: • remaining works that

This Q&A addresses the question of what the term ‘true value of land’ means in relation to a lease extension for the purposes of Land Registry: Practice guide 67: evidence of identity; conveyancers (Land Registry PG 67). Land Registry PG 67 Land Registry PG 67 provides guidance as to when an application to the Land Registry will require confirmation of identity to be provided and how such confirmation should be given. A conveyancer may be required to provide confirmation of identity for a client or may be required to provide evidence of identity for an unrepresented person who is involved in a transaction. In the latter case, confirmation of identity is provided using form ID1 or form ID2 (both of which are publicly available documents). Paragraph 4.1 of Land Registry PG 67, however, includes an exception to the requirement that confirmation of identity be provided. Paragraph 4.1 states: ‘A. The low-value exception Form