On 9 July 2012, the Immigration Rules for partners and children changed dramatically due to the introduction of Appendix FM (Immigration Rules, Appendix FM) which replaced much of Part 8 of the Rules. However, the Immigration Rules surrounding children remained largely untouched. The Rules prior to 9 July 2012 In order to fully respond to the query, it is first necessary to assess the Immigration Rules as they were prior to 9 July 2012. Prior to this date, a child applying for entry clearance could apply either under Immigration Rules, Part 8, paras 297 or 301. Paragraph 297 allows for a child to be granted indefinite leave to enter the UK in certain circumstances. It states as follows: ‘297. The requirements to be met by a person seeking indefinite leave to enter the United Kingdom as

A child of a relevant points-base system (PBS) migrant can apply for settlement if they meet the requirements set out in the Immigration Rules, Part 8, para 319J. When looking at the immigration status of the parents, Immigration Rules, Part 8, para 319J states that the dependent child can apply for settlement if: • both of their parents are lawfully settled in

Effect of an interim care order While a care order is in place, a relevant local authority holds parental responsibility at what can be described as a ‘superior’ level to that which is held by the parents. This is by virtue of the provision in section 33(3)(b)(i) of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989), which states that while a care order is in force with respect to a child, the local authority designated

Where one spouse or civil partner (A) is entitled to occupy a dwelling-house, whether because they own it or have a tenancy, and the other spouse or civil partner (B) is not so entitled, B may seek to register a homes right notice with HM Land Registry. If, as in the scenario of this Q&A, both civil partners have a beneficial interest in the dwelling-house, there may be no obvious need to register a home rights notice. A home rights

Service of documents on a defendant domiciled in Japan will need to comply with the provisions of the Hague Service Convention. See: Which service regime applies—checklist and Hague Service Convention—scope, application and methods of transmission for more information. The Hague Service Convention at para 10 provides: ‘Provided the State of destination does not object, the present Convention shall not interfere with a) the freedom to send judicial documents, by postal channels, directly to persons abroad, b) the freedom of judicial officers, officials or other competent persons of the State of origin to effect service of judicial documents directly through the judicial officers, officials or other

This question poses two different possible scenarios. The first is that a claim is being brought against a limited liability partnerships (LLP) in relation to a negligent act carried out by a member of the LLP. The second is that a claim is being brought against an LLP in relation to a negligent act carried out by an employee of the LLP. Each scenario is considered in turn. Negligent acts of members The members of an LLP are its agents. If a member acts on behalf of the LLP in the ordinary course of business and within their authority, they will not be liable for the LLP’s negligence. This was a prime driver for the creation of the LLP as a new entity which enabled members to limit their personal liability in contrast to the substantial personal liability of partners of general partnerships. An LLP is a stand-alone entity,

Can a claim be made against a company for trading whilst insolvent? Wrongful trading There are no claims that arise from a company simply ‘trading whilst insolvent’, albeit that is a phrase which is widely used. Instead, what is usually being referred to is a ‘wrongful trading’ claim. Wrongful trading is a claim which arises under section 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) and currently applies only when a company has gone into an 'insolvent liquidation', which is set out in IA 1986, s 214(6) as being when the company goes into liquidation at a time when its assets are insufficient for the payment of its debts and other liabilities and the expenses of the winding up. The important point to note is that a wrongful trading claim can 'only' at present be brought by a company’s liquidator—it is not a claim that a creditor can bring

Section 191 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (IHTA 1984) provides that if an interest in land is comprised in a person's estate immediately before his death and is sold by the ‘appropriate person’ within the period of four years immediately following death (and the appropriate person so claims), then the value for the purposes of inheritance tax (IHT) is, subject to certain provisions, its sale value. 'Appropriate person' is

The Court of Protection may revoke the appointment of a deputy or vary the powers conferred on them if it is satisfied that the deputy has behaved in a way that contravenes the authority conferred on them by the court. The court can remove deputies who act inappropriately and ask for an account and recovery during their lifetime. This would normally be dealt with by the Public Guardian commencing an investigation against the deputy which it is authorised to do and the Public Guardian can ask for a deputy to provide a final account where that deputy has been discharged. If the discharged deputy has died then the substitute deputy can employ a forensic accountant to assist in the completion of the account depending on the complexity of the matter. Ordinarily, the Court of Protection requires a

Bayoumi v Protim Services Ltd concerned damage arising from defective ‘tanking’ to prevent moisture ingress into a property that was to be let at least some of the time. In this case, a claim for breach of section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 (DPA 1972) for loss of rent during the period the property was not occupiable was not allowed. However, the Court of Appeal substituted the claim for loss of rent for a claim for loss of use and enjoyment which was successful, and the claimant was awarded damages. The claimant also succeeded in their claim for travel costs for travelling to and from the property to inspect and monitor the remedial works. In the decision and in the context of your query concerning the nature of losses that can be brought under the DPA 1972, the judge also referred to Halsbury (paragraph 1292, volume 45, albeit the judgment is from 1996) that referred to damages recoverable: ‘The damages recoverable in respect

For information on unlawful deductions from wages generally, see Practice Note: Deductions from wages. Section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996) prohibits a deduction from the worker’s ‘wages’; an employer may not make a deduction from the wages of any worker employed by the employer unless: • it is required or authorised to be made by virtue of any statutory provision or any relevant provision of the worker's contract, or • the worker has previously signified in writing their agreement or consent to the making of it Separately, ERA 1996,

Sri Lanka is a contracting party to the Hague Service Convention. This convention provides for a main method of service, set out in Article 5, and other alternative channels of service, set out in Articles 8–11. Sri Lanka has made declarations that some of the alternative channels for service are not available for use when serving documents in Sri Lanka. However, it has not opposed the use of the channel