There is no blanket requirement to establish the source of funds for every client and matter. The Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 (MLR 2017), SI 2017/692, as amended, do, however, require you to establish the source of funds involved in a transaction in relation to ongoing monitoring (where necessary). The MLR 2017 also require you to establish source of funds and source of wealth when conducting client due diligence (CDD): • on politically exposed persons, including family members and known close associates, and • in relation to any business relationship with a person established in a high-risk third country or any relevant transaction where either of the parties to the transaction

The obligation to carry out a right to work check only applies to employers. Therefore, if a person is an employee, then the obligation arises and the checks must be carried out in order for an employer to obtain a statutory excuse protecting them from a civil penalty for employing a person working illegally. For further guidance, see Practice Note: Right to work checks: when and why. However, the obligation does not arise if a person is not an employee. The Home Office guidance ‘Frequently asked questions about the illegal working civil penalty scheme’ provides some guidance at section 5 as to whether a person will be considered to be an employee or not. This can be a complex

A claim in private nuisance may arise from a ‘one off’ event or a continuing breach of duty. In the latter case, a new cause of action accrues every day, with

In recent years, local authorities and schools have found it increasingly important to restrict access to school premises in order to protect pupils and staff at the school. The Department for Education (DfE), in conjunction with the Home Office, has issued guidance and advice on matters relating to school security and, in particular matters concerning the law of trespass and section 547 of the Education Act 1996 (EA 1996). See DfE guidance: Advice on school security: Access to, and barring of individuals from, school premises for further information. The EA 1996 makes provision in relation to nuisance and disturbance

A claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (I(PFD)A 1975) is a claim regarding who should benefit from an estate and to what extent, rather than a claim against an estate by a third party. Executors are therefore expected to adopt a neutral position in proceedings under I(PFD)A 1975 and to treat the other parties to the proceedings equally. In contrast, it is the beneficiaries of the estate, principally the residuary beneficiaries whose interests are commonly most under threat, who are expected to defend the claim. Primarily, the executor’s responsibility is to administer and distribute the estate in accordance with either the Will or the intestacy rules and the applicable law. The executors should always be named as defendants

What is the procedure for seeking permission? In answering this Q&A, we have limited our research to cover transfer up of a possession order obtained pursuant to section 8 procedure of the Housing Act 1988. The following steps will need to be undertaken: Step 1: An application will need to be made to the County Court to transfer the proceedings to the High Court for enforcement The application should be made to the County Court in which the order was made. The application is for permission to transfer proceedings pursuant to section 42 of the County Courts Act 1984 (CCA 1984). Transfer of the proceedings is at the court’s discretion. In deciding to exercise its discretion the court must have regard to the criteria set out in CPR 30.3(2). For further information, see Practice Note: Transferring civil proceedings. A copy of the application for permission

A divisional application filed under section 15(9) of the Patents Act 1977 (PA 1977), whether the parent was made under the PA 1977 or under the Patents Co-operation Treaty (PCT), is procedurally a separate application from the parent. Indeed, in the European Patent Office (EPO) context, this has been found a couple of times (see T 1254/06 Digitale Datenrundfunkubertragung/DEUTSCHE TELEKOM (unpublished) 8 March 2007 at [r 1.1] and T 1176/99 Automated transaction system/PITNEY BOWES (unpublished) 23 July 2003 at [r 2.1]). Therefore,

Liquidated damages clauses A liquidated damages clause is a clause whereby the parties to a contract fix in advance a sum of money to be paid by the defaulting party to the innocent party in the event of a breach. Liquidated damages clauses tend to take one of two forms, either: • the parties agree at the time of contracting that, in the event of a breach, the party in default must pay a stipulated sum of money to the other, or • they agree that in the event of a breach the party in default will forfeit a sum already paid to the other An analysis of any liquidated damages clause will usually involve determining whether the purported liquidated damages clause exceeds the boundaries of a 'genuine pre-estimate of loss' (enforceable) and is, in fact, a penalty and thus unenforceable. See Commentary:

CPR 56 and CPR PD 56 govern landlord and tenant claims. By CPR 56.1 a landlord and tenant claim includes a claim under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954) for a new lease, where the protections of LTA 1954, Pt II thereof apply. Such claims will commonly be brought for the grant of a new tenancy where a commercial lease is not contracted out of the provisions of LTA 1954, Pt II ,and therefore

Without prejudice material The rule regarding any material marked ‘without prejudice, save as to costs’ applies to exclude all negotiations genuinely aimed at a settlement, whether oral or in writing, from being given in evidence or, indeed, as part of the pleadings. Therefore, if such material is inadvertently referred to in the pleadings, the pleading party may amend the same so that the references are removed and are not placed before the court. Privilege The privilege over without prejudice material belongs to both parties and can only be waived if both parties agree to it. If one party unilaterally pleads to or discloses such material, in the absence of an amendment, the other party may choose to either apply to strike out the offending material or to treat it as a waiver of privilege

We assume there is a contractual relationship between A and B to which C is not a party and has no third party rights under it. In answering this Q&A, we have focussed on the assumption that the contractual obligations between A and B are silent on the question of any prospective claim in tort against C. Contract and tort claims are separate actions so it would not matter if A chooses to bring a contractual claim against B and a tortious claim against C or decided to bring a claim against one of the parties only. In the case of a professional negligence claim, there could be contractual duties and concurrent duties in tort which may effect how a claimant decides to proceed and against which party. For more information on this, see Practice Note: Bringing

Introduction The Crichel Down Rules (CD rules) are ‘non-statutory arrangements’ (rule 1) published by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities, these are contained in the Guidance on Compulsory purchase process and The Crichel Down Rules (July 2019). Local authorities (LAs) with compulsory purchase powers are not required to follow the CD Rules, but ‘are recommended to follow the Rules’ (rule 4 and para 2 of the Annex to the CD Rules). In R (on the application of Denton) v Secretary of State for Defence [2002] EWHC 1043 (Admin) (not reported by LexisNexis®) however, it was emphasised that the CD Rules ‘give rise to a legitimate expectation that they will be followed’. An LA would therefore