In the case of a typical senior employee, the employment contract will (typically) include a number of provisions designed to protect the employer that will apply during the employment, eg in relation to conflicts of interest, confidential information and intellectual property (IP). See eg clauses 5, 18 and 19 of Precedent: Employment contract for senior employee and the related Drafting Notes. Those obligations will typically be supported by a provision giving the employer the contractual right to terminate the employment summarily if the employee commits a serious or repeated breach of any of the provisions of the contract. See eg clause 22.1.2 of Precedent: Employment contract for senior employee. However, depending on the impact of any breach, the ability to terminate the employment

As explained in Practice Note: UK GDPR and EU GDPR—transfers of personal data internationally and to international organisations and the Information Commissioner’s Office’s (ICO) guidance on international transfers, the use of SCCs, pre-approved by the Commission, provides an appropriate safeguard permitting transfers of personal data from a controller in the EEA (exporter) to a recipient party outside the EEA (importer). This Q&A assumes the SCCs referred to in the question are the 2010 Controller to Processor SCCs. Reference to SCCs (or parts of them) below are therefore to the 2010 Controller to Processor SCCs and we have solely considered this question by reference to those SCCs. For details of controller to controller versions, see Practice Note: UK GDPR and EU GDPR—transfers of personal data internationally and to international organisations. This

Given the lasting power of attorney (LPA) has been registered, it is assumed that it is in the requisite prescribed form and that evidence of its registration can be provided. It is also assumed that the attorney in question is either the sole attorney or has authority to act severally in respect of this issue (rather than jointly) and that the sale is in respect of land. Provided the formalities of section 9(2) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) have been complied with, the donor would have been able to confer authority on their attorney by way of LPA to make decisions about their property and affairs or specified matters in this regard, including to make decisions where

Is there any time limit within which the enforcement notice must be served after the arrears first fall due? Pursuant to section 77(3) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (TCEA 2007), commercial rent arrears recovery (CRAR) is only exercisable ‘if the net unpaid rent is at least the minimum amount [which has been amended for the period of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic—see below] immediately before each of these (a) the time when notice of enforcement is given (b) the first time that goods are taken control

A claim for damage suffered as a result of a defective product A consumer can bring a claim for damage suffered as a result of a defective product under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 (CPA 1987). To bring a claim, the thing that caused damage must be categorised as a product, the product must be defective and the claimant must bring the action against someone who can be liable for the damage caused by the defective product (producers, own branders and importers). In this Q&A the claimant is bringing an action against the supplier. The supplier of the product, whether it be a wholesaler, distributor or retailer, may be liable in place of the producer if it fails, within a reasonable period after the damage occurs, to identify the producer or its supplier of the product higher up the chain following a request to do so by the person

Form D180 may be used in relation to the registration of orders under article 39 of Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning judgments in matrimonial matters (Brussels II bis). Brussels II bis, art 39 is titled 'Certificate concerning judgments in matrimonial matters and certificate concerning judgments on parental responsibility' and states: 'The competent court or authority of a Member State of origin shall, at the request of any interested party, issue a certificate using the standard form set out in Annex I (judgments in matrimonial matters) or in Annex II (judgments on parental responsibility).' Where the application is only for the recognition of an order, it should be made clear that the application does not extend to registration

Private Client analysis: The case concerned an agricultural general partnership. There was no written partnership agreement, so the partnership was governed by the Partnership Act 1890 (PA 1890). Under Section 39 of the Act, and in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the court would typically order the assets of a dissolved partnership to be sold, enabling settlement of the partnership’s debts and liabilities and division of any remaining residue among the partners in the proportions in which profits are divisible. However, the court held in this case that an equity existed (akin to a proprietary estoppel) which made an open market sale unfair. It was therefore justified in making an order in accordance with Syers v Syers (1876) 1 App. Cas. 174, allowing the partner with the equity to buy out the other’s interest. The case is significant as it establishes when a Syers Order may be made to prevent unfairness or injustice. Written by Rose Westwood, associate, at Foot Anstey LLP.

The Transnational Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 1999 (TICER 1999), SI 1999/3323 implement Directive 2009/38/EC, the European Works Council and information and consultation procedure Directive (recast) in the UK. Other obligations to inform and consult may arise at a national level under the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004, SI 2004/3426 (see Practice Note: The Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004) and/or for European companies under the European Public Limited-Liability Company Regulations 2004, SI 2004/2326 and the European Public Limited-Liability Company Regulations 2009, SI 2009/2401. TICER 1999, SI 1999/3323 generally applies to: • undertakings with at least 1,000 employees within the Member States of the European Economic Area (EEA) and at least 150 employees in each of at least two such Member States, and • groups of undertakings which have at least 1,000 employees within the Member States of the EEA, at least two group undertakings in different Member States, and at least one group undertaking with at least 150 employees

Local Government analysis: This is a decision of the Upper Tribunal Lands Chamber on appeal from the First Tier Tribunal on what qualifies as a HMO requiring a licence under section 55 of the Housing Act 2004 (HA 2004). The FTT had allowed Ms Shokar’s application for a rent-repayment order on grounds that she was a tenant of a room in a ‘large rambling London townhouse’ during the period from August 2020 to February 2022, Mr Barker had been her landlord, if the property was an HMO, he was in control of it and had not obtained a licence. The issue in dispute was whether the property was a HMO requiring a licence. Mr Barker contended it was not because (a) the ground floor flat was self-contained and there were not more than four occupants in the remainder of the house; and (b) in any event, the four people living in the remainder of the house stayed for such short periods that their rooms were not their only or main residences. The FTT disagreed and made a rent repayment order. On appeal, the Upper Tribunal held that the FTT had failed to consider the definition of ‘self-contained accommodation’ when reaching its conclusion on issue (a) and made no findings of fact about whether the other occupants had occupied their rooms as their only or principal homes, seeming to take the matter as read. Written by Stephanie Lovegrove, barrister at 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square.

Public Law analysis: It is a truth universally acknowledged that the time limit for filing a judicial review (JR) claim form is ‘(a) promptly and (b) in any event not later than three months after the grounds to make the claim first arose’, as stated in the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR 54.5(1)). As all Administrative Court users will be aware, ‘complying with the time limits for commencing judicial review proceedings is always important’ as stated by Dame Victoria Sharp in R (EA) v Chairman of the Manchester Arena Inquiry at para [27]. But when is the last day for this all-important compliance? This question is examined by Imogen Proud, barrister at Monckton Chambers.

Are SIPs always appropriate? Due to the different type of awards that may be made under a share incentive plan (SIP), there are many different types of company for whom a SIP may be appropriate. Some companies will just want to give their employees the opportunity to purchase shares, while others will want to reward their employees by giving them shares for free. Other companies may want to encourage their employees to purchase shares by providing matching shares linked to the number of shares purchased. Therefore, for any company that wishes to encourage share ownership across their workforce, a SIP may be a logical choice, particularly given the potential tax advantages. However, due to the strict requirements and the administration involved, a SIP will not necessarily be appropriate for all companies. This Practice Note details some of the reasons why a SIP may not be the most appropriate arrangement in light of a company’s size, structure, employees and objectives and then proceeds to analyse the specific issues a SIP may cause for:

A petitioner must, at least five business days before the hearing of a winding-up petition, file with the court a certificate of compliance in accordance with rules 7.9 and 7.10 of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules