An employee's consent will be required for any variation to his contract of employment after his employment has started, including the introduction of a new post-termination restriction, unless the employer can rely on an express contractual reservation of the right to vary the contract, which is unlikely. Consent may be express, for example where the employee signs a document to acknowledge that he accepts the new terms or gives an oral acknowledgement of his acceptance, or implied. Obtaining the express consent of the employee(s) concerned to the proposed changes is effective to vary the contract of employment if the consent is: • given freely and free from duress, and

The so-called 18–25 trust was created by changes to the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (IHTA 1984) announced in the 2006 Budget, which took effect on 22 March 2006. Prior to those changes, the type of trust described in this scenario would usually have been an ‘accumulation and maintenance’ trust under IHTA 1984, s 71. No new accumulation and maintenance trusts could be created after 21 March 2006. The 18–25 trust broadly replaced the accumulation and maintenance trust, but in a much more constrained form. Subject to what follows, if the parent in question died on or after 21 March 2006, the trust referred to above will be an 18–25 trust. The relevant criteria are (in summary): • the trust property is held on trust for the benefit of a person who has not attained the

Section 1 of the Administration of Estates Act 1925 provides that real estate, to which a deceased person was entitled, for an interest not ceasing on death,

In answering this Q&A, we have assumed that the contract in question is a business to business (B2B) contract. It is crucial that exclusivity provisions are enforceable. Many contractual disputes centre on what the contract means. There is no simple set of rules to follow in respect of how contracts may be construed and interpreted. Much will depend on the individual facts of the case. However, over the years a considerable body of case law (and some statute) has evolved which has set some parameters and guidelines for the approach to be taken. For bargains

CPR 3.8(4) provides: ‘In the circumstances referred to in paragraph (3) and unless the court orders otherwise, the time for doing the act in question may be extended by prior written agreement of the parties for up to a maximum of 28 days, provided always that any such extension does not put at risk any hearing date.’ Based on this provision, parties may agree to an extension of time up to a maximum of 28 days from the date of service of the witness statement, subject to the need to avoid risking any hearing date. There is no express exclusion of multiple extensions of time so it would seem that the parties are entitled to agree to any number of extensions up to a maximum of 28 days, provided they are otherwise made in accordance with the CPR, in particular CPR 3.8(4). For further information, see Practice Note: Agreements to extend time under CPR 3.8(4)

While the making of a gift or series of gifts to an individual may give rise to inheritance tax (IHT) and/or capital gains tax consequences for the donor or their estate (depending on the donor’s circumstances), no income tax liability will arise on the recipient simply as a result of receiving the gift(s). Therefore there is no need for the recipient to declare the regular gifts received on their income tax Self Assessment return. If interest is earned subsequently

STOP PRESS: From 6 April 2017, the Insolvency Rules 1986, SI 1986/1925 were revoked and replaced by the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (IR 2016), SI 2016/1024. The content in this Q&A may have been affected by this change. This Q&A looks at the effect of a debtor providing a charge over his property as security for the debt claimed by a creditor in a statutory demand, which is not disputed by the debtor. The position where security exists at the date of the statutory demand Under rule 6.1(5) of the Insolvency Rules 1986, SI 1986/1925 (IR 1986) a creditor is required to disclose in his statutory demand any security held by him over the debtor’s property as security for the debt and the value of that security.

If a reversionary lease is to be contracted out of the security of tenure provisions of the Landlord

Practice Note: Applying for a sponsor licence under Workers and Temporary Workers: eligibility and suitability notes that an organisation which has different subsidiaries, location offices or campuses (all of which are termed 'branches' for these purposes) in the UK can choose to register: • all its branches together under one licence • all its branches separately, or • several of its branches together, eg by location The relevant section of the sponsor guidance is at Workers and Temporary Workers Sponsor Guidance, Part 1, Organisations with multiple branches. Where a sponsor wishes to add new branches subsequent to the grant of a licence, the Practice

This Q&A is intended for law firms. It deals with when you can terminate your retainer. Incorrectly terminating a retainer can have serious consequences. You will not be entitled to be paid for any work done on the client’s matter and you could be subject to disciplinary sanctions by the SRA. See also: Can I close down my relationship with Russian clients—law firms? Incorrectly terminating a retainer can have serious consequences, eg you: • are not entitled to be paid for any of the work done on the client's matter • could be subject to disciplinary sanctions by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) Requirements about terminating the retainer can largely be found in the Solicitors Act 1974 and case law. There is a unified message: to terminate a retainer you must have good cause and you must give reasonable notice to the client. No entitlement to be paid A retainer is normally an entire contract under which you agree to do certain work for the client. If you wrongfully terminate

Do you need to: • amend a party's name in a statement of case to correct an mistake as to the party's name, or • add or substitute a new party or parties to the proceedings? The rules governing when and how a statement of case may be amended are contained in CPR 17 and CPR PD 17. See Practice Notes: Amending a statement of case—introduction and Late amendments to statements of case—the court's approach. The rules governing when and how parties may be added or substituted are set out in CPR 19. See Practice Note: Adding (joinder) and substituting parties. However, the court's power to grant permission to amend a statement of case pursuant to CPR 17.3 is subject to: • CPR 17.4—amendments to statements of case after the end of the limitation period • CPR 19.4—adding and substituting parties before the end of the limitation period • CPR 19.6—adding and substituting parties after the end of the limitation period I have misspelled a party name—what should

This Q&A explains when and how a UK firm should apply for authorisation or a variation of permission (VoP) under the revised and recast Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (Directive 2014/65/EU) (MiFID II). Firms that carry on MiFID II activities without the necessary permissions may face civil, regulatory and/or criminal consequences. More detailed information can be found in the MiFID II application and notification user guide that was published by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in January 2017. The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) has also produced a document setting out the authorisations process for MiFID II. What is MiFID II, and when will it take effect? From 3 January 2018, the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MIFID) will be replaced by a new Directive (MiFID II) and Regulation (MiFIR). MiFID II and MiFIR (the level 1 legislation) will be supplemented by detailed rules adopted by the European Commission in the form of delegated or implementing regulations or directives (the level 2 legislation).