The issues This Q&A deals with the issue of injunctions and protected parties. The questions are: • can you take out an injunction against a protected party? • what is the effect of the lack of capacity of the person being injuncted or their serious mental health issues? • would the court’s knowledge of the lack of mental capacity affect the court’s ability to grant the injunction? • would medical tests be required? Protected parties A ‘protected party’ is defined in the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR 1998), SI 1998/3132, r 21(1) as a party, or an intended party, who lacks capacity to conduct the proceedings. ‘Lacks capacity’ means lacks capacity within the meaning of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005). Under

Participants are able to sell their share incentive plan (SIP) partnership shares at any time and any free, matching or dividend shares, provided the holding period in respect of them has been completed. However, to get the full income tax and National Insurance contributions (NICs) advantages, a participant will normally have to keep all the shares in the plan for at least five years (or three years for dividend shares). However, the SIP rules permit disposal of SIP shares before the end of a holding period on the court sanctioning of a scheme of arrangement if the scheme is applicable to or affects: • all of the ordinary share capital • all of the shares of the same class as the SIP shares, or • all the shares, or all the shares of the class in question,

Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954) provides security of tenure in respect of qualifying business tenancies. The effect of the Act is to provide that notwithstanding the ending of the term of a protected business lease, the tenancy continues and the tenant has the right to a new lease unless the landlord successfully opposes the grant of that new tenancy by establishing one of the specified 7 grounds contained in LTA 1954, s 30. Its provisions are therefore a powerful protection for tenants designed to give business continuity, and can be a considerable burden upon a landlord. If

According to Sch 5, Pt 5, para 35(1)(b) of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (ITEPA 2003), an enterprise management incentives (EMI) option must confer a right to acquire shares that are fully paid up. The ability to exercise EMI options through the use of a 'cashless exercise' facility is therefore technically contrary to the EMI legislation. However, given that EMI options are commonly exercised immediately prior to share sales,

Service of interim charging orders CPR 73.7 requires a judgment creditor to serve the interim charging order, the application notice and any supporting documents on the debtor. Other persons to be served are set out in CPR 73.7(7). The period for doing so is either within 21 days of the date of the interim order if it was made at the County Court Money Claim Centre (CCMCC) or not less than 21 days before the hearing if the interim order was made at court (or has been transferred out of the CCMCC for a hearing). Failure to serve the documents properly can lead to the application being dismissed and the interim charging order discharged, although typically the final hearing would be adjourned so that valid service can be effected. Service of documents The usual rules of service in CPR Part 6 apply. CPR 6.20 to CPR 6.29 govern service

This Q&A raises the issue of the circumstances in which a lease of commercial premises will enjoy the protection of Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954). The starting point is that for as long the premises are occupied by the tenant for the purposes of a business which he carries on there, the lease will have the protection of the Act (LTA 1954 s 23(1)). Accordingly, aside from the right to forfeit for breach covenant, the landlord cannot bring the lease to an end other than in accordance with LTA 1954 s 24(1)(2). This can be done by service of a notice under LTA 1954, s 25 taking effect no earlier than the contractual termination date. Providing however that the necessary occupation of the premises exists, the lease will be continued under LTA 1954. Furthermore, providing the tenant does so before the date specified in the notice for bringing

It is a long-established principle that winding-up proceedings should not be commenced where the petition debt is genuinely disputed on substantial grounds. If a purported creditor attempts to do so, the court can invoke its inherent jurisdiction to restrain the presentation of a petition. Further, it is an abuse of process to seek to use the winding-up court as a debt collection agency. However, what constitutes a 'genuine dispute' is subject to argument. This Practice Note looks at some of the situations in which petition debts have been disputed and sets out some of the principles that can be drawn from case law. Scope This Practice Note covers the following: • winding-up petitions based on a disputed debt: the basic principles • the effect that a counterclaim can have on winding-up proceedings • how the court will deal with winding-up proceedings where the debtor company is balance sheet solvent, but a debt is due • the circumstances in which the court will allow winding-up proceedings based on a substantial

For information on employees and workers on zero hours contracts generally, see Practice Note: Zero hours contracts. A zero hours worker may, depending on the circumstances, have protection: • from prohibited conduct under the Equality Act 2010 (if they have a protected characteristic) • from less favourable treatment as a part-time worker See Practice Note: Zero hours contracts—Discrimination protection (including part-time worker status). If an individual on a zero hours contract is an employee, they will have the right not to be unfairly dismissed, and to a statutory redundancy payment. See Practice Notes: • Entitlement to claim unfair dismissal • Entitlement to statutory redundancy payment Redundancy is a potentially fair statutory reason for dismissal. However, as with other potentially fair reasons, the fairness of a redundancy dismissal is to be determined by the test of whether an employer's decision to dismiss for that reason falls within the range of reasonable responses of a reasonable employer in those circumstances and in that line of business. Failure to follow a fair

Filters are a feature often included on social media apps, such as Instagram, Snapchat and TikTok, which enable users to quickly edit an image, usually of their face, by applying a pre-set edit to that image. Many types of filter exist and they are used for a variety of purposes ranging from filters intended for humour, to ‘beauty’ filters, which exist to accentuate, alter or exaggerate a person’s features in a manner the user finds aesthetically pleasing. Initially, the only filters available on social media apps were those produced in-house, however, many of these sites now allow for third party content creators to design and upload their own filters, which has drastically increased the amount of filters

The court has the power to stay the whole or part of any proceedings or judgment either generally or until a specified date or event under CPR 3.1(2)(f). This power should be exercised in accordance with the overriding objective of enabling the court to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost. A stay of court proceedings can be sought at various stages in the proceedings, including pre-allocation and in the directions questionnaire, and can generally be ordered following an application by the parties or by the court acting on its own initiative. A stay of court proceedings does not become effective

Each Tier 2 sponsor licence holder agrees, as a part of the conditions of holding a licence, that the Home Office can access their premises or sites under their control on demand. This will usually be for the purposes of carrying out an audit, and checking that the licence holder is complying with its sponsor licence duties. The subject of compliance visits is considered in Practice Note: Worker and Temporary Worker sponsor duties: preparing for and attending a Home Office compliance check, but it does not address this specific issue raised here. Neither does the Home Office guidance relating to

A conversation with Mark Katz, partner at Canadian law firm Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP, on key issues on foreign direct investment (FDI) merger control in Canada under the Investment Canada Act. General overview of the Investment Canada Act regime The Investment Canada Act (ICA) authorises the Canadian government to review certain investments by non-Canadians in Canadian businesses and, where considered appropriate, to either prohibit these investments from proceeding, order investments to be unwound or divestitures made, or condition approval on undertakings and commitments by the investor. There are two key aspects to ICA review: • the ‘net benefit review’ process, and • the ‘national security review’ process. Pursuant to the net benefit review process, a non-Canadian proposing to acquire control of a Canadian business (including a business in Canada owned by a foreign entity), and whose acquisition exceeds certain thresholds, must satisfy the government that its investment will be of net benefit to Canada. Although the ICA sets out various factors to be considered in this regard, the decision is largely