The Child Support Maintenance Calculation Regulations 2012, SI 2012/2677 provide at reg 12 that the initial effective date of the maintenance calculation (ie the date on which liability begins) is the date when the non-resident parent was notified of the application (in accordance with SI 2012/2677, reg 11). In accordance with SI 2012/2677, reg 12(2), the non-resident parent must be notified of the initial effective date: • by written notice posted to the last known

A child is a ‘qualifying child’ for child maintenance if one or both of their parents are, in relation to them, non-resident. A parent is a non-resident parent if that parent is not living in the same household with the child, and the child has their home with a person who is a person with care. A person with care is defined by section 3(3) of the Child Support Act 1991 (CSA 1991) as the person with whom the child has their home, who usually provides day to day care for the child (whether exclusively or in conjunction with any other person), and who does not fall within a prescribed category of person. The person with care need not be a parent, nor do they need to have parental responsibility. Both

The questioner asks two questions: • first, can a parish council which holds the legal title to a town or village green (TVG) prevent the ad hoc playing of an informal game of football thereon? The answer is that it may be able to do so in some limited circumstances • second, what powers does a parish council have to restrict exercise and recreation on the village green? The answer is that it has only limited powers It is important to note that the identity of the landowner is not relevant, as the powers of the landowner as landowner are very limited—whether the landowner is a private individual or a local authority such as a parish council. Two official publications are relevant here

A part-time worker has the right not to be treated by their employer less favourably than the employer treats a comparable full-time worker: • as regards the terms of their contract, or • by being subjected to any other detriment by any act, or deliberate failure to act, of their employer The Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 (PTW Regs 2000), SI 2000/1551 therefore apply (among other things) to holiday. For further information generally on a part-time worker’s rights under the PTW Regs 2000, SI 2000/1551, see Practice Note: Part-time workers. There are no special provisions in the Working Time Regulations 1998 (WTR 1998), SI 1998/1833 for part-time workers. Their position

Section 28 of the Partnership Act 1890 (PA 1890) states: ‘Partners are bound to render true accounts and full information of all things affecting the partnership to any partner or his legal representatives.’ The rights and obligations of partners continue after dissolution as far as necessary to wind up the affairs of the

A partnership is the relation which subsists between persons carrying on a business in common with a view of profit (section 1 of the Partnership Act 1890 (PA 1890)). It is therefore necessary to have (1) a business; (2) carried on in common; (iii) with a profit motive (see, eg Malik v Hussain and others at para 48). Under PA 1890, s 20, property brought into or acquired on behalf of the partnership is referred to as partnership property and must be held and applied exclusively for the purposes of the partnership, in accordance with the partnership agreement. Co-owners of property that is not partnership property, and who are partners as to profits of that property, and who then are partners during a future purchase, hold the land not as partners but as co-owners in the same way as

The answer to these queries will very much depend on the terms of the partnership agreement. However the following are the main considerations. Expulsion The Partnership Act 1890 (PA 1890) provides that no majority of partners can expel a partner unless such a power has been expressly agreed by the partners (PA 1890, s 25). Therefore there can be no expulsion without an express clause to this effect. If the partnership agreement does contain such a provision, it should be carefully reviewed to ensure that the expulsion falls within the terms of the clause (eg does the clause expressly allow for one partner to expel the other? Is the right of expulsion only exercisable in certain circumstances and, if so, have these

It is worth beginning any analysis of the problem posited by this question by establishing the potential causes of action that might be open to party B, the owner of the goods sold, as against the auctioneer. It is important when undertaking such analysis to appreciate that it is party A, the hirer of the equipment, who is the ultimate wrongdoer. It is clear enough that party B has no contractual relationship with the auctioneer. Thus, by operation of the doctrine of privity and absent any ability to make use of the provisions of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, B must found its claim in some other way than via a breach of contract claim. That leaves open to B, therefore, a claim founded in the law of torts or, perhaps, a claim founded on the existence of a trust. For

In the present case, Party X has been granted a specific right to build a bridge and then to use it for a set purpose, namely the transportation of refuse. To determine the extent of the right, it would be necessary to construe its wording. The line of authority

Section 1 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 states that, provided one year has passed since the date of the marriage, a petition for divorce may be presented to the court by either party to the marriage on the ground that the marriage has broken down irretrievably, citing one of the five facts. Either party may act as first petitioner, or may, in response to a divorce petition from the other party, file their own petition. When both sides file divorce petitions, it may be appropriate for there to be a hearing for the court to give directions. The parties may be able to agree to proceed with one of the petitions, potentially amended to make it more palatable for

A guarantee agreement is a form of contract. Under the general principles of contract law, the death of one of the parties to a contract does not discharge the contract. A contract may however, be discharged by frustration where after the formation of the contract an event occurs, which renders further performance of the contract impossible, illegal or something radically different from what was contemplated by the parties when they made the contract. The doctrine of frustration will come into play where there is a radical difference between the original contractual obligation and the performance that is possible as a result of the changed circumstance. Frustration depends on the true construction of the terms that are in the contract read in the light of the nature of the contract and the relevant surrounding circumstances when it was made. As

The court does not have a general power to award compensation for consequential losses flowing from the breach of a financial remedy order. Instead, the enforcement regime with its full range of remedies is designed to give effect to and ensure compliance with the terms of the order in question. Much will depend on the terms of the order involved. Two possibilities which may serve to address the higher mortgage costs are detailed below. Potentially it may be possible to apply for a variation of the order under the section