Produced in partnershep with Neha Tarabadkar, Helene Whelbourn and Amanda McDowall at Lee & Thompson Following Brexit, there has been uncertainty over whether the disclosure of a design in the UK, but which was accessible within the EU would give rise to Community Unregistered Design rights. The UK Supplementary Unregistered Design Right (SUD) is a right created in the UK post-Brexit, which sits separately from and supplements the existing UK Unregistered Design Right. The SUD is established automatically when a design is first disclosed in the UK and lasts for three years from the date of disclosure. The right was created to fill the gap between Unregistered Community Design Right (UCD) and the existing UK Unregistered Design Right. UK Unregistered Design Right protects the shape and configuration of articles whereas the SUD protects the 2D and 3D appearance of whole or part of a product, including its shape, colour, texture and ornamentation etc. The two unregistered

Laches is an equitable doctrine, and as a general rule acts as an equitable bar to equitable claims. In other words, it acts as a limitation of actions in equity where the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980) does not otherwise apply. This gives rise to three general points of principle. The first point is that the doctrine is applicable only in respect of claims to enforce equitable rights, on the basis that ‘he who comes to equity must do so without delay’—ie a claimant in equity is bound to prosecute their claim without delay. Thus a court of equity has always refused its aid to stale demands. The doctrine is applicable therefore only in respect of a limited range of claims, such as for breach of trust or fiduciary duty, to enforce equitable rights, such as for rectification, recession or estoppels or for remedies such as specific performance and injunctions. The second point, however,

An easement is a right over land that benefits some other land. The former is described as the 'servient' land, whereas the land with the benefit is the 'dominant' land. The right benefits the dominant land itself, rather than the person who from time to time has ownership or use of the dominant land. An easement can be express and granted by deed, or arise by implication or prescription (long use). An easement can therefore be contrasted with a licence, which will usually be granted to a specific person to, for example, enable them to access land across the servient tenement. See Practice Notes: • Easements—nature and characteristics • Easements—interpreting the use and extent In the

As explained in Practice Note: Making an application under the EU Settlement Scheme, where a person is applying from overseas as a joining family member under the EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS), the mechanism of application will depend upon whether the applicant is able to use the EU Exit: ID Document Check app. To be eligible to use the app: • an EEA citizen must hold a biometric passport (or biometric national ID card), and • a non-EEA citizen must hold a biometric residence card (ie a biometric EEA residence card or permanent residence card issued following an application under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016, SI 2016/1052 (the EEA Regs 2016), or a biometric residence card issued following a previous application under the Scheme If they can use the app, they can apply directly for leave to enter under Immigration Rules, Appendix

In this Q&A we have taken into consideration which persons have standing to attest the signing of a deed made on behalf of a company. The formalities relating to the execution of a deed on or after 6 April 2008 by a company are set out in section 44 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006). CA 2006, s 44 applies to companies registered under the said act and also its predecessors. There are, broadly, two methods by which a company can execute a deed in accordance with CA 2006, s 44; either: • under its common

It is assumed for the purposes of answering this Q&A that the alleged injury occurred prior to the deceased’s death. The definition of a ‘Sole Trader’ is a person carrying on business in his personal capacity. Had the sole trader not died, a potential personal injury claim is likely to have been brought against him personally. Assignment of a cause of action is examined in the case of Simpson v Norfolk & Norwich University Hospital NHS Trust. On appeal the court answered the question of whether it is possible to assign a cause of action in tort for damages for personal injury. The judge at first instance held that an assignment of a personal injury claim is incapable as the assignment is of a personal nature, on appeal Lord Justice Moore-Bick concluded as follows: 'The assignment in this case plainly savours of champerty, given that it involves the outright purchase by Mrs Simpson

The concept of continuous employment, as set out in Part XIV of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996) and the Employment Protection (Continuity of Employment) Regulations 1996, SI 1996/3147 is a purely statutory one. Since there is nothing in ERA 1996, s 203(2)(e) or section 18(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 to permit it, parties can neither contract out of nor into continuity of service for the purposes of claims brought under ERA 1996, such as unfair dismissal and redundancy payment entitlement, for which continuity of employment is a factor (Collison v BBC). Where

An employee is freed from any post-termination restriction if: • there is a wrongful dismissal (ie a dismissal in breach of contract), or • the employer commits another repudiatory breach which is accepted by the employee If the contract is terminated lawfully, whether

A claim for financial remedies is the (relatively) new nomenclature for what was previously known as ancillary relief. Such a claim allows the court to divide up the assets of divorcing parties by making certain specified orders contained in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973). The court has the power to transfer property; order the payment of a lump sum or maintenance; and make pension sharing or adjustment orders. Any order that the court makes can only take effect on the granting of decree absolute, ie the final dissolution of the marriage of the parties (MCA 1973, s 23(5)). There is no power (other than in respect of interim relief) for the court to make an order that takes effect prior to that stage. There is presently some ambiguity

The Non-Contentious Probate Rules 1987 (NCPR 1987), SI 1987/2024, r 22 sets out the order of priority for grant in case of intestacy. NCPR, rule 22(4) provides: ‘Subject to paragraph (5) of rule 27, the personal representative of a person in any of the classes mentioned in paragraph (1) of this rule or the personal representative of a creditor of the deceased shall have the same right to a grant

As there are executors appointed, we assume that there was a valid Will. As the executor derives title from the Will, legal title vests on the moment of death without the need for the registration of the disposition at HM Land Registry (section 27(5)(a) of the Land Registration Act 2002 and section 1(1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1925). The right to an extended lease may be exercised by

Where parties own a property as tenants in common there will ordinarily be a restriction preventing a single owner from giving valid receipt for the sale of the property. This protects the other co-owner from a unilateral sale. Any attempt to carry out such a transfer would be open to challenge and potentially to an action for breach of trust. An executor has the power to act on behalf of the estate of the deceased, which can include giving valid receipt on their behalf. Where a property is in the sole name of the deceased and there are no contrary beneficial interests, an executor is able to give valid receipt and does not need to appoint a second person to effect the sale (the position is different where trustees are acting). Therefore there is no difficulty in principle with an executor effecting a sale on behalf of the