This Q&A assumes that the husband and wife held the property as tenants in common in equal proportions. The question relates to three different trusts. The requirement to register each trust with the Trust Registration Service (TRS) will be considered in turn. Trust of land before death The husband and wife held the property as tenants in common. As they were both the only trustees and the only beneficiaries of the trust, the exclusion from the requirement to register on the TRS was covered by the co-ownership trusts exclusion contained in the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017, SI 2017/692, Sch 3A, para 9. For further guidance, see section ‘Co-ownership trusts’ in Practice Note:

The basic rule is that, subject to exceptions, where an asset is held in joint names by a husband and wife, or civil partners, or by a same-sex married couple, the income from the asset is generally treated as belonging to both owners equally and taxed

The short answer to this question is no. Unless a child is born as a result of assisted reproduction techniques to which he consented, a husband does not have parental responsibility for a child born during the marriage unless he is the father of that child. However, there is a rebuttable presumption at common law that the father of a child born in wedlock is the mother’s husband. Pursuant to section 2(1) of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989): 'Where a child’s father and mother were married to each other at the time of his birth, they shall each have parental responsibility for the child'. However, if evidence comes to light that establishes to the satisfaction

It is fairly common that where unmarried parents separate, the court will be faced with cross-applications under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA 1996) and Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989). TOLATA 1996 allows the court to make orders relating to a trust of land, including the power to declare the beneficial interests of the parties (where one party seeks to contend that the true beneficial ownership of the property differs from the legal ownership) and for the sale of property (TOLATA 1996, s 14), with the court considering all of the circumstances and in particular the matters set out in TOLATA 1996, s 15. ChA 1989, Sch 1 claims allow

Charging orders A charging order is a means of securing a judgment debt against the judgment debtor's assets. The charging order of itself does not realise money to satisfy the judgment debt, that only happens if and when an order for sale is obtained (after a final charging order has been made) and, again, only if and when the charged property is sold and there are sufficient sale proceeds to discharge the judgment debt. For more information on charging orders, particularly in relation to a charging order over land, see Practice Notes: • Order for sale—how to enforce a charging order • Order for sale—next steps after obtaining an order for sale • Obtaining a charging order over land These Practice Notes can be found in: Charging orders—overview. To

Under section 32(1) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973): ‘A person shall not be entitled to enforce through the High Court or the family court the payment of any arrears due under an order for maintenance pending suit, an interim order for maintenance or any financial provision order without the leave of that court if those arrears became due more than twelve months before proceedings to enforce the payment of them are begun.’ On this basis, if there are arrears of maintenance that were due more than 12 months before the enforcement proceedings, the permission of the

This Q&A covers the approach of the courts in England and Wales. Jurisdiction agreements Choosing non-exclusive jurisdiction is intended to enable either party to bring proceedings against the other, either in the courts of the jurisdiction set out in the jurisdiction clause or in the courts of any other country that has jurisdiction under its own jurisdictional rules (the party bringing the proceedings need not do so in the courts stated to have non-exclusive jurisdiction in the jurisdiction clause). The sentence: ‘...the party bringing the proceedings need not do so in the courts stated to have non-exclusive jurisdiction in the jurisdiction clause.’ explains that where a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause is chosen and that clause

Non exclusive jurisdiction clauses A non-exclusive jurisdiction clause in an agreement generally indicates the parties’ agreement to submit a dispute arising out of the agreement to the courts of a particular jurisdiction, in this case Scotland, but also leaves either party with the option to commence legal proceedings in the courts of any other jurisdiction. Note that exclusive jurisdiction clauses are much more restrictive and mean that a party can only commence proceedings in the jurisdiction specified in the jurisdiction clause. The English courts’ approach to jurisdiction clauses, whether exclusive or non-exclusive, is one of construction of the agreement applying ordinary contractual principles. For information on types of jurisdiction agreements, see Practice Note: Jurisdiction agreements—introduction. Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 When dealing with jurisdiction issues between different parts of the UK, it is important

Egypt Egypt will recognise foreign judgments where international treaties (whether bilateral or multilateral) exist. In general, the Law on Civil and Commercial Procedures provides that foreign judgments can be enforceable in Egypt by a state court decision, pending the satisfaction of certain conditions in the foreign judgment and reciprocity at the foreign court’s state. Egyptian courts will review a foreign judgment to ensure that: • the Egyptian courts do not maintain jurisdiction, and that the foreign court was competent to decide on the dispute • the judgment is final • the principles of due process were abided by • the judgment does not contradict a decision rendered by an Egyptian court, and • it is not contrary to public policy in Egypt United

A variation of a lease to reduce the term of the lease is treated as an acquisition by the landlord (section 43(3)(d) of and paragraph 15A(2) of Schedule 17A to the Finance Act 2003 (FA 2003)). The tax would normally be due on the amount or value of the chargeable consideration given by the landlord under general principles. Consequently, if no consideration is given for the transaction, the transaction would usually be exempt from charge (FA 2003, Sch 3,

This Q&A assumes that the landlord has a direct covenant with the undertenant in respect of compliance with the repairing obligations in the headlease, for example by way of a direct covenant in a licence to underlet (see: The superior landlord's concern: Ross: Commercial Leases [2]). Whether or not a settlement entered into between the landlord and tenant in respect of dilapidations precludes the landlord from claiming against the subtenant is likely to depend on the terms of the settlement, including any releases provided. The main body of case law in this area relates to tortious cases: • in the House of Lords case of Jameson (executors of Jameson (decd)) v Central Electricity Generating Board (Babcock Energy Ltd, third party),

Identity of ‘landlord’ who must serve section 25 notice The landlord who is able to serve a section 25 notice is not necessarily the tenant’s immediate landlord, but is the party who fulfils the conditions set out in section 44 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954), namely the next party in the chain of interests above the tenant who has an interest with more than 14 months unexpired. See Commentary: Meaning of 'the landlord': Halsbury's Laws of England [1606]. Where a landlord company changes its name after the grant of a lease (but the company number remains the same), the new name of the company should be used in any section 25 notice served. What elements need