As confirmed in our Practice Note: Family members of EEA nationals: definitions and rights of entry and residence [Archived], at the heading ‘Family members of returning British nationals’, the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 (EEA Regs), SI 2016/1052, reg 9 provides that third country national family members of British citizens, who have exercised treaty rights in another EEA state and return to the UK, can obtain a right of residence. This derives from the principle initially developed by the Court of Justice in R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Surinder Singh and Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie v Eind. EEA Regs 2016, SI 2016/1052, reg 9 provides that, if the relevant conditions are satisfied, ‘these Regulations apply to a person

Whether a single employee working in the UK for a non-UK company could give rise to a taxable presence for the non-UK company is considered below. Risk of UK tax residence If the non-UK incorporated company is centrally managed and controlled in the UK—ie if the strategic decision-making relating to the company takes place in the UK—the company is UK tax resident under UK domestic law (unless, in accordance with a double tax treaty, it is treated as tax resident outside the UK). A UK tax resident company is generally subject to UK corporation tax on its worldwide profits. Often, a company is centrally managed and controlled by its board of directors (since they are normally the ones that make the strategic decisions) and this takes place where their board meetings are held. However, as case law has shown, who in fact takes such strategic decisions and where they take them, and therefore where a company is centrally managed and controlled,

HMRC updated its guidance for employers on the coronavirus (COVID-19) job retention scheme (CJRS) on 4 April 2020, and some of the revisions it has made are relevant to this query. As initially drafted, the guidance for employers stated that any UK organisation with employees could apply for a grant under the scheme if they: • had created and started a pay as you earn (PAYE) payroll scheme on or before 28 February 2020, and • had a UK bank

The express terms of the trust should be reviewed as to any powers of appointment of trustees. Note that, subject to any express provisions in the trust document to the contrary, there is a statutory power to remove a trustee who has been outside the UK continuously for a period of 12 months contained in section 36(1)

The starting point with regard to a calculation sought from the Child Maintenance Service (CMS) against a named parent is that the CMS will request evidence of that parent to prove that they are not the parent. However, no maintenance calculation will be made on the assumption that the alleged parent is a parent unless under section 26 of the Child Support Act 1991 (CSA 1991): • the child is habitually resident in England and Wales and the Secretary of State is satisfied that the alleged parent was married to the child’s mother at some time in the period beginning with conception and ending with birth • the alleged parent was registered as the father of the child • the alleged parent has refused

Agreements between entities operating at different levels in the supply chain are often called ‘vertical agreements’. Distribution agreements are a type of vertical agreement. For more information, see: Distribution—overview and Lexology Panoramic: Distribution And Agency. There are several different types of distribution arrangement that can be utilised in a supply chain, including exclusive, non-exclusive (or ‘free’) and selective distribution. In the UK and EU, distribution agreements may benefit from an exemption from competition law restraints, provided they do not contain any prohibited or hardcore restrictions. Distribution and UK Competition Law Chapter I of the Competition Act 1998 and the vertical restraints block exemption order Chapter I of the Competition Act 1998 (CA 1998) prohibits agreements which prevent, restrict or distort competition within the UK. For further information, see Practice Notes: Chapter I prohibition and Introduction to the application of Chapter I to vertical agreements. Anti-competitive agreements are illegal under the Chapter I prohibition unless they fall within a block exemption

In this Q&A we are referring to restrictions on sales into territories within EEA. Agreements between companies operating at different levels in the supply chain are often called ‘vertical agreements’. Vertical agreements may also be described as distribution agreements, although this does not reflect their full range and diversity. However, certain types of distribution arrangement may be prohibited under competition law, some examples of which include: • exclusive distribution—where the supplier agrees to sell to only one distributor for resale in a particular territory (see Practice Note: Competition law and exclusive distribution agreements) • selective distribution—where the supplier agrees to supply only specified approved distributors, who in return agree to sell on only to other approved distributors and end users (see Practice Note: EU competition law and selective distribution) • exclusive customer allocation—where the supplier agrees to sell to each distributor for resale only to an exclusive class of customers Article 101 TFEU and the vertical restraints block exemption Article 101 of the Treaty

An employee benefit trust (EBT) is a discretionary trust which means that it is a trust for a class of beneficiaries as opposed to individuals. As a discretionary trust, the trustee (usually following a request from the settlor) chooses which of the beneficiaries actually benefit. For further more general information on EBTs, see Practice Note: What is an employee benefit trust? For a copy of a precedent EBT deed, see Precedent: Employee Benefit Trust Deed. Typically EBTs are set up to fall within the following statutory provisions: • the definition of a trust for the benefit of employees in section 86 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (IHTA 1984). This provides exemptions from inheritance tax (IHT) for certain transactions involving qualifying EBTs. For further information, see Practice Note: Employee benefit trusts and inheritance tax considerations • the definition of an employees' share scheme in section 1166 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006). This provides exemptions from certain company law requirements for arrangements which are employees'

'A protected party' is defined under the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, 2.3(1) as a person who lacks capacity within the meaning of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005), to conduct proceedings. A person lacks capacity in relation to a matter if at the material time they are unable to make a decision for themselves in relation to that matter because of an impairment of, or disturbance in, the functioning of the brain. A person is unable to make a decision if they are unable to understand the information relevant to the decision, retain that information, use or weigh that information as part of the process of making the decision or communicate their decision (whether by using sign language or other means). If the person against whom an injunction is sought

Applications for non-molestation orders under Part IV of the Family Law Act 1996 (FLA 1996) are governed by the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, in particular FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, Pt 10 and the supporting practice direction FPR 2010, PD 10A. The duration of a non-molestation order is at the discretion of the court and FLA 1996, s 42(7) provides that a non-molestation order may be made for a specified period or until further order. An injunction made 'until further order' will last until such time as either the applicant or respondent applies to discharge it. Such orders are made only in exceptional cases, eg where there is a history of expired injunctions. It is established practice to stipulate a time limit in most cases. Duration is often effected by whether or not the application was made with notice or without notice and whether there has been a return date. Emergency Procedures in the

Part IV of the Family Law Act 1996 (FLA 1996) (FLA 1996, s 30) makes provision for the Family Court to make orders regulating the use and occupation of property (an occupation order), and to provide protection from violence, harassment and other molestation (a non-molestation order). A non-molestation order can be made against a person who is “associated with” the applicant (this being defined in FLA 1996, s 63 and relating primarily to family members). By FLA 1996, s 42(7), a non-molestation order may be made for a specified period or until further order. By FLA 1996, s 49, a non-molestation

Under Part IV of the Family Law Act 1996 (FLA 1996), an application may be made for a non-molestation order prohibiting a person (the respondent) from molesting another person who is associated with the respondent or a relevant child (FLA 1996, s 42(1)). An associated person includes a person that they are or have been married to (which could of course include someone aged 16), and relatives including sons and daughters (FLA 1996, s 62). We have not found anything in the FLA 1996 that specifies an age limit for the respondent to proceedings. Emergency Remedies in the Family Courts states in section 'Injunctions against persons aged under 21 or who lack capacity' that: ‘There is jurisdiction to grant an injunction against a person under the age of 18, whether to restrain molestation in a family case (Re L (A Minor) (Injunction