Without prejudice communications Without prejudice immunity is based on the public policy that parties should be encouraged to settle litigation, or disputes which may lead to litigation. It is never absolute and the case of Unilever PLC v The Proctor & Gamble Company sets out some of the exceptions to immunity which include: • where there is an issue over whether the communication resulted in a concluded agreement • where a party seeks to set aside an agreement concluded in without prejudice communications on the grounds of misrepresentation, fraud or undue influence • where excluding the evidence would mask perjury, blackmail, threat or other unambiguous impropriety, and • where the communication or document constitutes evidence of delay or acquiescence Not everything termed without prejudice is necessarily so. The communication or document must contain or amount to a genuine attempt at resolving issues and must not fall within an exception.

We have not seen anything in the commentary on adverse possession which excludes land used for railway undertakings. However, the following may be helpful for your purposes. In TW Logistics v Essex County Council and Ian James Tucker, Mr Tucker had obtained the registration of a piece of land as a town or village green on the basis that a significant number of the inhabitants of the locality had used the land as of right for lawful sports and pastimes for a period of at least 20 years. TW Logistics applied to have the register of town and village greens rectified by deregistering the land. Various arguments were raised in support of the application, but one was that the pursuits and sports were not legal as part of the land comprised railway land over which the railway tracks were laid and although the tracks were disused, the use of the land for sports and pastimes would have

The collateral purpose rule A party to whom a document has been disclosed may generally only use that document for the purpose of the proceedings in which it was disclosed unless or until: • the document has been read to or by the court, or referred to, at a hearing, which has been held in public (CPR 31.22(1)(a)) • the court gives permission (CPR 31.22(1)(b)), or • the party who disclosed the document and the person to whom the document belongs agree (CPR 31.22(1)(c)) This is often referred to as the ‘collateral purpose rule’. Documents read or referred to by the court A disclosed document which has been read to or by the court, or has been referred to at a public hearing may be used for purposes other than the proceedings in which they were disclosed (CPR 31.22(1)(a)). This rule is underpinned by the general principle of open justice in the common law. The principle of

Aggrieved persons cannot directly trigger the liability of another person for contaminated land under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Pt IIA (EPA 1990). Who can trigger Pt IIA? Local authorities (LAs) have the sole responsibility for determining whether land appears to be contaminated land under the EPA 1990, Pt IIA. They cannot delegate this responsibility, except in accordance with the Local Government

Section 106 agreements (section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990)) enable those with an interest in land to ‘by agreement or otherwise’ enter into an obligation to (TCPA 1990, s 106(1)(a) to (d)): • restrict the development or use of the land • require specified operations to be carried out • requiring the land to be used in any specific way, or • require a sum or sums to be paid to the authority As TCPA 1990, s 106 permits the obligation(s) to be given ‘by agreement or otherwise’, the obligation(s) can be made by a unilateral undertaking. Consideration is given in this answer to both. For either an agreement or a unilateral undertaking to be binding on all interests in the land, all those with an interest in the land must be made parties to the agreement, or they must join in the unilateral undertaking.

CPR The CPR 5.3 states: '5.3 Signature of documents by mechanical means Where any of these Rules or any practice direction requires a document to be signed, that requirement shall be satisfied if the signature is printed by computer or other mechanical means.' This demonstrates the wide scope of the application of CPR 5.3. CPR PD 5A, para 1 provides: 'SIGNATURE OF DOCUMENTS BY MECHANICAL MEANS 1 Where, under rule 5.3, a replica signature is printed electronically or by other mechanical means on any document, the name of the person whose signature is printed must also be printed so that the person may be identified. This paragraph does not apply to claim forms issued through the Claims Production Centre.' Commentary In respect of the meaning of CPR 5.3, the Signature of documents by mechanical means: The Civil

An unincorporated association is an organisation formed when two or more persons (the members) carry on activities together for a common purpose. It does not operate for the purpose of generating profit, and it is not a separate legal entity from its members. There is no body of legislation that sets a legal framework for unincorporated associations. In general, the operation of an unincorporated association is subject to a mixture of common law and its own rules (otherwise known as its constitution or byelaws) rather than legislation. This means that the organisation’s own rules will usually determine the maximum and minimum number

The Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) provides that a limited company may finance a share buyback from its distributable profits (CA 2006, s 692(2)(a)(i)). For this purpose, ‘distributable profits’ means profits out of which the company could lawfully make a distribution (within the meaning given by CA 2006, s 830) equal in value to the payment to be made by the company to finance the share buyback (CA 2006, s 736). Whether a company has distributable profits is essentially an accounting question to be determined

The failure to protect a deposit in a tenancy deposit scheme (TDS) precludes a landlord from serving a notice to terminate an assured shorthold tenancy under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 (HA 1988), but it does not prevent them from serving notice and proceedings under HA 1988, s 8 ground. For the landlord to be liable for the fine, the tenant will have to issue proceedings or a counterclaim against the landlord, in respect of their failure to protect the deposit in a TDS under section 214 of the Housing Act 2004 (HA 2004)—under which HA 2004, s 214(4) states that

An administrator acts as agent of the company and is granted statutory powers to execute documents in the name of the company under paragraphs 8–9 of Schedule 1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986). Administrators have power to: • use the company’s seal • execute in the name of and on behalf of the company any deed, receipt or other document It is standard practice for an administrator to execute sale contracts for both the company in administration and in their personal capacity in order to take advantage of any exclusions

EMI options are most commonly granted over newly issued shares, but there is nothing to prevent an EMI option from being granted over existing shares instead, provided that the shares meet EMI statutory requirements (see Practice Note: EMI—requirements for options—Shares over which an EMI option may be granted). As the EMI legislation requires that the option must take the form of a written agreement between the person granting the option and the employee, the relevant option agreement in these circumstances can either be: • between the EMI company and the employee—with the company acting as grantor and entering into separate arrangements

The General Data Protection Regulation, Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR), will replace Directive 95/46/EC (Data Protection Directive) and all implementing data protection legislation in EU Member States, including the UK’s Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA 1998) from 25 May 2018. The GDPR will be directly applicable in all Member States without the need for implementing national legislation. This Q&A relates to a transfer between two businesses (which are not public bodies or public authorities) and does not encompass the ‘limited transfer for compelling legitimate interests’ exemption mentioned