The subject matter as a copyright work In order for copyright to subsist in a work, the subject matter must be an ‘original intellectual creation’. In the Court of Justice Funke Medien judgment, the court dealt with de minimis arguments: • it is for the national court to determine whether military status reports, such as the classified military status reports (UdPs), may be regarded as ‘works’ within the meaning of Articles 2(a) and 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC and therefore be protected by copyright • in making this determination, the national court must ascertain whether the UdPs are an intellectual creation of their author which reflect the author’s personality and are expressed by free and creative choices made by that author in drafting those reports The court stressed that national courts must strike a balance between the exclusive (copyright) rights of authors on the one hand and the rights of the users of protected subject matter (such as rights to freedom of expression), while taking into account the fundamental rights enshrined

In Santley v Wilde, Lindley M.R. stated: ‘…a mortgage is a conveyance of land…as a security for the payment of a debt or the discharge of some other obligation for which it is given. This is the idea of a mortgage: and the security is redeemable on the payment or discharge of such debt or obligation, any provision to the contrary notwithstanding. That, in my opinion, is the law. Any provision inserted to prevent redemption on payment or performance of the debt or obligation for which the security was given is what is meant by a clog or fetter on the equity of redemption and is therefore void…’ There are therefore several fundamental features of mortgage: • a personal ‘obligation’ owed by the mortgagor to the mortgagee • an agreement by the mortgagor to giving ‘security’ to the mortgagee that the obligation will be discharged, and • the creation of a mortgage by the mortgagor in

Transactions are linked for stamp duty land tax (SDLT) purposes if they form part of a single scheme, arrangement or series of transactions between the same seller and buyer (or persons connected with them) (section 108(1) of the Finance Act 2003 (FA 2003)). Connected for these purposes is as set out in section 1122 of the Corporation Tax Act 2010. Where transactions are linked for SDLT purposes, the consideration for the linked

On the basis that these shares are available to the employees by reason of their respective employments, the relevant shares will be employment-related securities in relation to each employee, and will therefore be subject to the tax regime under Part 7 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (ITEPA 2003) in each case. In these circumstances, each employee has different tax considerations in relation to the transaction, as set out below. In many cases, the articles of association and any shareholders’ agreements of the relevant company may specify the manner in which any sale price must be determined when shares are disposed of. However, for the purposes of this Q&A we are assuming that there is no such concern, and that the price for the shares can be set at whatever level the parties agree to. We are also assuming that the selling employee executed an election under of ITEPA 2003, s 43 when they originally

Where co-owners wish to do a positive act in relation to a lease (eg serve a break clause), unless the lease specifically provides otherwise, all the co-owners must do, or be involved in, the relevant act. This is the case whether they are landlord or tenants. Exceptionally, the continuance of a periodic tenancy is based on the continuing positive assent of all co-owners (eg both of two joint tenants) to the extension of the term for a further period. Accordingly, the action of giving notice to determine a periodic tenancy while positive in form, is regarded in substance as being negative: it is a withdrawal of necessary continuing positive assent. For this reason, either co-owner (ie one of the joint tenants) can validly serve a notice to quit (Hammersmith & Fulham LBC v Monk).

It is assumed that this Q&A relates to a joint-tenancy operating as an assured shorthold tenancy under the Housing Act 1988 (HA 1988), and that upon expiry of the fixed-term the tenancy has become a statutory periodic tenancy pursuant to HA 1988, s 5(2). It is a well-established common law rule that one joint tenant can terminate the joint-tenancy on behalf of all joint-tenants by serving a valid notice to quit (NTQ) upon the landlord. For the purposes of a residential tenancy the NTQ must comply with section 5 of the Protection from Eviction Act 1997 and so be in writing, give not less than four weeks’ notice (or longer if so required under the terms of the tenancy) and expire upon the final day of a period

Under English law relating to registered land, the legal title to land is held by the registered proprietor who may hold that land for himself, for himself and others, or for others. Even in the case of a trust of land there is no minimum number of trustees: see Re Myhill and section 25 of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA 1996). It is the case, however, that a sole trustee of land cannot give a good receipt for the capital money unless that trustee is a trust corporation. Where there are two legal owners, then they always hold the legal estate as joint tenants so that if one dies the legal title passes automatically to the survivor by the right of survivorship, ie by operation of law. The legal owners, however, might have held the property on trust for themselves as beneficial joint tenants, for themselves as tenants in

See Practice Note: Severance of a joint tenancy, which explains that section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA 1925) sets out the requirements for a validly served notice, including a notice of severance served pursuant to LPA 1925, s 36(2). As set out in the Practice Note, a notice is

This Q&A considers the factual situation where there are two trustees of a settlement, T1 and T2. T1 wishes to retire and T2 wishes to appoint a new trustee to act in place of T1. The settlor has the right under the trust instrument to appoint new trustees during their lifetime but has lost capacity. The question is whether T2 can appoint a new trustee under section 36(1) of the Trustee Act 1925 (TA 1925) on the basis that the person nominated for the purposes of appointing new trustees who is not ‘able and willing to act’. Removal and appointment of trustees There are six modes of removing/appointing a trustee as follows: • under the inherent jurisdiction of the court (Letterstedt v Broers) • by the court under TA 1925, s 41 when expedient to do so • an

Where one spouse seeks an order that the other spouse leave a property in which they live together, an application may be made for an occupation order under the Family Law Act 1996 (FLA 1996). An occupation order can do a number of things, including requiring one party to allow the other to enter and remain in the home and requiring one party to leave the home. An occupation order can be made against any associated person and there does not need to be domestic abuse in order for an application to be made. Occupation orders can be made under five different sections of FLA 1996 detailing distinct sets of circumstances. The extent of the court’s powers depends on the eligibility of the applicant, their relationship with the respondent and the status of the dwelling-house. The factors that the court must consider differ in each category:

A home rights notice protects the rights given to a spouse or civil partner under section 30 of the Family Law Act 1996 (FLA 1996). That section provides that where one spouse has an entitlement to occupy a dwelling house by virtue of a beneficial estate, interest or contract, or any enactment giving the right to occupy, and the other does not, the latter spouse or civil partner has the right not to be evicted or excluded without the permission of the court or, if not in occupation, the right with the permission of the court to enter into and occupy that dwelling house. Home rights allow the non-entitled spouse to pay rent as if they were the entitled spouse

In summary, in order to qualify for capital gains tax entrepreneurs’ relief (ER), a selling shareholder must satisfy various statutory tests, including a requirement that they must have held at least 5% of the ordinary share capital for the period of at least one year up to the date of sale. For the purposes of this Q&A, we have assumed that the relevant shareholder did not acquire their shares via the exercise of an enterprise management incentives option, where less onerous qualifying criteria apply (see Pratice Note: CGT—business asset disposal relief (formerly entrepreneurs' relief)—Personal company test for fuller details of the various statutory requirements for ER). It is standard practice for options over