Directors, including shadow directors, who continue to trade while a company is insolvent, or otherwise act poorly in relation to the management of a company’s affairs, may be liable to disqualification under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 (CDDA 1986). It is rare that an application for a disqualification order fails and the cost of defending a disqualification order is often prohibitively high. At any time during the disqualification process a director may give a disqualification undertaking and voluntarily place their name on the register of disqualified directors. This is significantly cheaper and the period of disqualification is often shorter. Following disqualification, directors may also be liable to pay compensation to one or more creditors where the

If a document is subject to the duty of disclosure but contains confidential information, it may be possible to redact it, ie obscure or mask parts of the text. This can be a means of seeking to maintain the confidentiality of, most commonly, a name (whether of an individual, entity, process, etc) but also of information that one party does not want to become public knowledge. If the parties contest whether redaction is appropriate, an application can be made to a tribunal. In Plymouth City Council v White, Judge McMullen QC, applying the principles set out in Science Research Council v Nassé, gave helpful guidance as to the sequence to be adopted in a disclosure application (at [para 11]): '(1) The judge must first consider if the document sought is relevant (if it is not, then it will not

In order for the Crown Court to consider making a confiscation order, the statutory conditions under section 6 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002) need to have been met, and then are subject to the requirement of proportionality (POCA 2002, s 6(5)). Once the court has decided to consider confiscation it will consider (a) the defendant’s lifestyle, (b) whether the defendant has benefited and (c) the available and therefore recoverable amount (see: Confiscation procedure—flowchart). When determining whether the defendant has benefitted from criminal conduct, the court is concerned with what it can be said that the defendant has obtained as a result of or in connection with the conduct which either constitutes an offence in England

Dispute Resolution analysis: JK Rowling has been given permission to make a statement in open court as part of her acceptance of an offer of amens for libel. Callum Galbraith, a solicitor specialising in dispute resolution in Hamlins LLP’s entertainment, media and IP department, discusses the issues raised by the case.

Local Government analysis: Mr Bussandra (the applicant) gave up housing association accommodation in Brighton and applied to the City of London Corporation (the authority) as homeless. The authority decided that the applicant had become homeless intentionally as a result of giving up the accommodation in Brighton. The applicant requested a review of that decision, arguing that their mental health meant that their decision to give up the accommodation in Brighton should not be treated as deliberate. The authority upheld its decision on review and the Applicant appealed to the County Court. The applicant’s appeal was allowed, among other reasons, on the basis that the authority’s review officer had not applied the correct test as to whether the applicant had acted deliberately. The authority successfully appealed to the Court of Appeal. The court considered the correct approach to deciding whether mental illness means that an act or omission should not be treated as deliberate. Written by Ian Peacock, barrister at 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square.

Once an employer or member has paid contributions into a scheme, they cannot generally get a refund, at least not without triggering the tax penalties associated with unauthorised payments. This is because such refunds will usually be treated as unauthorised payments. There are however a few exceptions: • for member contributions: ◦ where the scheme in question is an occupational pension scheme and the refund qualifies as a short service refund lump sum. For more information, see Practice Note: Refunds of member contributions—Requirements for a short service refund lump sum ◦ where the refund qualifies as a refund of excess contributions lump sum (whatever the type of registered pension scheme making the refund). For more information, see Practice Note: Refunds of member contributions—Refund of excess contribution lump sums ◦ where the refund is made in exercise by the member of a right to a statutory cooling off period in respect of a registered pension scheme (ie where the member changes their mind about joining a pension scheme

THIS PRACTICE NOTE LOOKS AT PENSIONS REDUCTION IN THE CONTEXT OF ONGOING REGISTERED OCCUPATIONAL PENSION SCHEMES Reductions of a person’s pension entitlement (ie by a reduction of that individual’s accrued pension rights or of their pension in payment) under an ongoing occupational pension will require the prior consideration of numerous legal and fiscal limitations or conditions before they can be achieved, namely: • typically, in the provisions of the scheme’s governing documentation • by statute, notably sections 67 and 91–93 of the Pensions Act 1995 (PA 1995) • under employment law • through tax consequences under the Finance Act 2004 (FA 2004) Before turning to those it will be instructive to understand the scenarios in which pensions reductions may arise. Typical scenarios of pensions reduction Examples of common scenarios in which pensions reduction can occur include: • scheme restructuring/deficit reduction • pension transfers • scheme transfer to the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) • early retirement • commutation of a pension • surrender of a pension in favour of a spouse or dependant • bridging pensions • recovery of overpayments

We have limited this Q&A to cover the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA 1998). We have not commented on the forthcoming General Data Protection Regulation, Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR). All data processors should bear in mind the data protection principles when considering any proposed actions with personal data. These are set out in Practice Note: Data protection principles under the DPA 1998. Principle 1, which is that ‘personal data must be processed fairly and lawfully’, will be particularly relevant to this Q&A. The conditions set out in DPA 1998, Sch 2 and 3 are known as the 'conditions for processing'. As explained in Practice Note: Consent under the DPA 1998, to satisfy Data protection principles under the DPA 1998—Principle 1: Personal data must be processed fairly and lawfully of the DPA 1998, data controllers must be able to demonstrate, among other matters, that they have met: • one of the conditions

IP analysis: This is the opinion of Advocate General Spielman on a request from the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice, Germany) for an interpretation of Article 10(3)(b) of Directive (EU) 2015/2436. Written by Helene Whelbourn, legal director at Lee & Thompson LLP.

EU Law analysis: This is the decision from the Court of Justice, following the opinion of Advocate General Spielman, on a request from the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice, Germany) for an interpretation of Article 10(3) (b) of Directive (EU) 2015/2436 as to whether the proprietor of a national trade mark may prevent another party stocking infringing products in another country for the purpose of selling them into the country where the national trade mark is protected. Written by Helene Whelbourn, legal director at Lee & Thompson LLP.

In some cases, the original petitioner may be unable or unwilling to continue to prosecute the winding-up petition. This often occurs, for example, where the petition debt is paid shortly before the winding-up hearing. In those circumstances, a creditor or contributory that wishes for the winding-up to continue may apply to ‘take carriage of the petition’, by seeking an order that they are substituted in the place of the original petitioner

Subrogation allows a person (A) to bring a claim for losses against a third party (C) where the right to bring such a claim has accrued to another (B). Such claims are common in the context of insurance, where the insurer (A) brings a claim against C to recover losses caused by C to B, and where A has paid out to B under the terms of the insurance policy. Subrogation is founded in equity and is aimed at the prevention of unjust enrichment by enabling A to step into B’s shoes to bring the action that accrues to B. Subrogation amounts to a transfer of rights from one person to another without an assignment or assent and which takes place by operation of law: Orakpo v Manson Investments Ltd. Outside of the insurance sphere, subrogation may arise in a commercial agreement through a contractual provision such as an indemnity. For example, A