Acting as executor If a person is appointed as executor of an estate and has lost capacity, they cannot apply for the grant of probate. In those circumstance and assuming there is no co-executor, Rule 35 of the Non-Contentious probate Rules 1987, SI 1987/2024 permits the registrar to appoint: • the person authorised by the Court of Protection to apply for a grant • where there is no person so authorised, to the lawful attorney of the incapable person acting under a registered enduring power of attorney,

There are various requirements for an EPA to be valid, including that the donor had sufficient mental capacity at the time they executed the EPA to be able to understand its nature and effect, that the attorney was an adult, non-bankrupt individual or a trust corporation, that the EPA was in the prescribed format, and that it was executed before 1 October 2007. See Practice Note: Requirements for a valid EPA. Once executed (before 1 October 2007), an EPA could be used immediately

It is assumed for the purposes of this reply that the ‘respondents’ are people who would dispute the claim that the energy supplier is insolvent.   While the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) provides no definition of insolvency, IA 1986, s 123, provides the statutory definition (or tests) that determine a company's inability to pay their debts and this is used for practical purposes as the definition of insolvency. The most common ways of establishing an inability to pay debts are where: • a creditor has issued a statutory demand for a debt that has remained unpaid 21 days after the date of the statutory demand (or the same relevant procedure in Scotland and Northern Ireland) (see IA 1986, s 123(1)(a)) • the company is unable to pay its debts as they fall due (commonly referred

Enterprise management incentives (EMI) options may be granted under a set of EMI share option scheme rules, or by way of a EMI standalone share option agreement, as long as the agreement is written and contains the following information: • the date on which the option is granted • that the option is granted under the provisions of Schedule 5 Parts 1–8 to the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 • the number, or maximum number of

Enterprise management incentives (EMI) options may be granted under a set of EMI share option scheme rules, or by way of an EMI standalone share option agreement, as long as the agreement is written and contains the information listed in paragraph 37 of Schedule 5 Part 5 to the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (ITEPA 2003). There is no minimum period before which EMI options can be exercised (there is now a maximum period of 15 years in order to gain tax advantageous income tax and National Insurance contributions (NICs) treatment—see Practice Note: EMI—requirements for options—The EMI option must be capable of being exercised within

Business asset disposal relief (BADR) is a reduced rate of capital gains tax (CGT) that individuals or trustees, but not companies, can claim when they dispose of business assets. Certain conditions must be met before the relief will apply. In relation to disposals made after 6 April 2025, the effect of the relief is to reduce the rate of CGT on the disposal to 14% on a lifetime limit of gains of up to £1m. Previously, the rate of CGT that applied when BADR was available was 10%, but this was increased by the Finance Act 2025, which also legislated that the rate would be further increased to 18% for disposals made on or after 6 April 2026. For details of the qualifying conditions for BADR and the lifetime limit that applies to it, see Practice Note: CGT—business asset disposal relief (formerly entrepreneurs'

This Q&A has been answered on the basis that the reader is seeking to draft the terms of a new enterprise management incentives (EMI) share option rather than interpret the terms of an existing EMI option which has already been granted. Paragraph 38(a) of Schedule 5 to the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (ITEPA 2003) states: ‘The terms on which the option is granted— (a) must prohibit the person to whom it is granted from transferring any of that person's rights under it, and (b) if they permit it

The case of Papa-Johns (GB) Ltd v Doyley [2011] Lexis Citation 92, a misrepresentation and negligent misstatement claim, found in favour of the guarantor of a franchise agreement. The entire agreement clause in the franchise agreement failed to protect the franchisor. This alert explains why and provides next steps for businesses.

The case of Stodday Land Ltd v Pye addressed a similar issue in relation to a registration gap. In this case, a buyer of property who was not the registered owner of the property served a notice to quit on an agricultural tenant. The notice was served in the ‘registration gap’: the period between when the legal process of transferring the title to the plot is completed as between vendor and purchaser and when the transaction is entered on the register of title at HM

Full question: 'In a potential 1975 Inheritance Act claim, the deceased largely left his estate to his minor grandchildren omitting his wife from whom he was separated. Neither party remarried. The PRs are the children of the deceased and the wife as well as parents of the minor grandchildren. This is a non-hostile claim as the PRs recognise the deceased should have left something substantial to the wife. Can the PRs (and a litigation friend appointed on behalf of the minor grandchildren) come to a settlement with the wife (their mother/grandmother) and seek Court approval under CPR 21.10 or must the wife first instigate proceedings under the 1975 Act?' A minor beneficiary cannot consent to the variation of a Will, but the Court is able to provide consent on behalf of a minor beneficiary where it deems the variation to be in the best interests of the minor. An application

Arbitration analysis: Can an exclusive jurisdiction clause be treated as one which also determines the seat of arbitration? In May 2024, the Delhi High Court (‘DHC’) in Kings Chariot v Tarun Wadhwa ruled in the negative. This post is a comment on the court’s decision. Written by Shaneen Parikh, Partner and Head of International Arbitration at Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas and Amoga Krishnan, senior associate at Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas.

Formalities required for a deed The requirements of a deed are set out under section 1 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 (LP(MP)A 1989). To be a deed, an instrument must: • be in writing • make it clear on its face that it is intended to be a deed • must be validly executed as a deed by the parties (or by persons authorised to execute it in the name or on behalf of the parties), and • be delivered as a deed Deeds must be delivered in order to take effect. Note that ‘delivery’ does not mean physical