Category C meaning

Evidence of bad character Identify material relied on. Confirm it falls within CJA 2003 s98; if not, state its relevance. Set out the basis for admission: gateway(s) under ss101–106, reliance on conviction alone or its circumstances, key facts and proof. For unproven conduct or acquittals: outline facts, disputes, and why admission will not cause collateral litigation. Deal with each ground by the relevant gateway (ss102–106). Important explanatory evidence Under s101(1)(c): show that, without it, the tribunal would struggle to understand other evidence, and its value is substantial. Propensity to commit offences/be untruthful Under s101(1)(d): show convictions evidence propensity (same description/category), why that increases likelihood of guilt, and admission is fair. Consider number of convictions, behavioural tendency, similarities (eg modus operandi), gaps, and whether earlier untruthfulness arose (eg disbelieved accounts or false representations). Correct a false impression Under s101(1)(f): show a false impression per s105...

This checklist sets out what a company listed in the equity shares (commercial companies) category must announce to a regulatory information service (RIS) in relation to a significant transaction under UKLR 7.3 of the UK Listing Rules. Under the UKLR, a significant transaction is one where any percentage ratio reaches 25% or more. Initial disclosure requirements—UKLR 7.3.1R The following must be notified to a RIS as soon as the terms of a significant transaction are agreed: UKLR 7.3.1R (2)(a): A statement setting out why the transaction is notifiable under UKLR 7. UKLR 7.2.13G (4): If the notice concerns aggregated transactions, an explanation of the basis for aggregation, with reference to whether UKLR 7.2.11R (1)(a), (1)(b) or (1)(c) applies. UKLR 7.3.1R (2)(b): A summary of the transaction and the company’s rationale for undertaking it, including the items below. UKLR 7 Annex 2, 1.1 R (1): Full particulars of the transaction, including the name of the counterparty. UKLR 7 Annex 2, 1.1 R...

In this issue: Probate Court of Protection UK taxes for Private Client HMRC Manuals updates Tax avoidance, evasion and non-compliance Insolvency—Private Client Digital assets and cryptoassets Charity and philanthropy Contentious trusts and estates Pensions, insurance and tax efficient investments International Question of the week Additional Private Client updates this week Daily and weekly news alerts LexTalk®Private Client: a Lexis®PSL community New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Latest Q&As Useful information Probate HMCTS probate enquiry line—temporary reduced hours From 14 February 2024, and for 12 weeks, the HMCTS probate helpline will run on reduced hours: 9am to 1pm, Monday to Friday. The HMCTS Probate Service remains available via web‑chat from 9am to 5pm, Monday to Friday. Source: HMCTS Probate LinkedIn post. MoJ urges those entitled to claim dormant funds held by CFO to act now The Ministry of Justice...

In this issue: Copyright & associated rights Patents Trade marks/passing off Designs General IP Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Latest Q&A Useful information IP Highlights 2024/2025 Copyright & associated rights Testing the outer limits of artistic copyright (WaterRower v Liking) WaterRower (UK) Ltd v Liking Ltd (t/a Topiom) [2024] EWHC 2806 (IPEC) centred on whether a rowing machine, the WaterRower, qualified for protection as a work of artistic craftsmanship under section 4(1)(c) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. The matter compelled the court to address a clash between the UK and EU criteria for this category. While earlier rulings had managed to sidestep that divergence, it could not be avoided here. Unable to bridge the divide, the judge determined the WaterRower was not a work of artistic craftsmanship under UK law, although it would have secured protection applying EU law....

Judge Thomas Leech stated he was unconvinced that investors who based their decisions solely on Barclays’ share price or its listed status had any realistic chance of persuading the Court of Appeal that their claims might prevail at all. He added that his October 2024 ruling, which reduced the claim’s value by more than half, had been reached after careful legal consideration. “I should have the courage of my convictions, and if I am satisfied the claims ought to have been struck out, it is not open to me to grant permission to appeal,” Judge Leech remarked. Hundreds of institutional investors, including the Allianz Global Investors Fund, are pursuing Barclays following a complaint by the New York attorney general concerning the bank’s LX Liquidity Cross trading platform, which erased billions of pounds in market value...

ARCHIVED : This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. STOP PRESS : This Practice Note is archived and no longer updated. As of 28 March 2023, the disclosable arrangements (DAC 6) regime was superseded by the Mandatory Disclosure Rules (MDR). The DAC 6 legislation and accompanying HMRC guidance have been withdrawn. As outlined here, the scope of the UK’s disclosure rules was materially narrowed from IP completion day (11 pm on 31 December 2020). The residual disclosure obligations were then wholly replaced on 28 March 2023 by new rules implementing the OECD MDR, as set out in The International Tax Enforcement (Disclosable Arrangements) Regulations 2023, SI 2023/38 (the MDR regulations). Although the DAC 6 Regulations, SI 2020/25, were revoked with effect from 28 March 2023, they continue to apply to arrangements entered into before that date. An arrangement put in place immediately before 28 March 2023 does not fall between the two regimes — it remains reportable under the DAC 6 rules in SI 2020/25, and...

Dividends paid to shareholders on their shares are the form of distribution most frequently encountered—essentially a transfer of accumulated profits to the company’s owners. For corporation tax, however, distribution has a much broader scope. The Corporation Tax Act 2010 (CTA 2010) prescribes the particular situations in which a company is treated as having made a distribution. In certain instances, amounts described as interest can be recharacterised as distributions for tax purposes. The two principal scenarios are: distributions relating to non-commercial securities (category E)—see Practice Note: Types of distribution—interest recharacterised as a distribution: non-commercial securities; and distributions concerning special securities (category F), addressed in this Practice Note Exclusion from distribution treatment Some cases are excluded from being treated as distributions, as outlined below. Interest and distributions are taxed differently for a corporate recipient: interest receipts are generally brought within the loan relationships regime, whereas distributions are outside that regime...

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Call-off The method, within a framework agreement, of directing particular works to be undertaken when needed, as appropriate. According to the arrangement's format and conditions, a call-off might demand that a separate contract is concluded, or it may simply need the instructing party to issue a call off notice. Refer to Practice Note: Framework agreements in construction—call-off procedures. CAR insurance Consult Contractor's all risk (CAR) insurance below. Category A fit out Interior fit out provided to a fundamental standard for landlords/developers, typically. Pinning down the scope is challenging, as it can differ quite widely in practice. Nevertheless, guidance does exist, such as authoritative publications issued by the British Council for Offices. Category B fit out Interior fit out delivered to an exact specified design for occupiers/owners...

A: Introduction Date of monitoring review Person carrying out the review B: Consolidated data Periods: last [insert period] and last 12 months Suspected Accounts Rules breaches reported to the COFA Total breaches (serious and non‑serious) Serious breaches Reported to the SRA; if not same as “serious”, explain C: Data by compliance breach category Client money: non‑permitted use Client money: paid into office account Client money: wrongly withheld from client account Client account: incorrect withdrawal Client money: delay paying in Client money: not paid to client promptly/at all Client account: incorrect receipt Client account: other breach Interest policy breach Accounting records: office account Accounting records: client account Cheque/Bacs: incorrect signatory Bill of costs: miscalculation Accountant’s report Office account breach Other D: Conclusions from monitoring review Breach register current? Yes/No; if...

A: General information Date the monitoring review occurred Individual who completed the monitoring review B: Consolidated data Criteria covering the past 12 months Number of suspected Accounts Rules compliance breaches reported internally to the COFA Number of confirmed Accounts Rules compliance breaches (serious and non‑serious) Number of serious Accounts Rules compliance breaches Number of Accounts Rules compliance breaches reported to the SRA If this differs from the ‘Number of serious compliance breaches’, explain why C: Data by compliance breach category Category of compliance breach during the last 12 months A: Client funds applied for a non‑permitted purpose B: Client funds paid into the office account C: Client funds wrongly withheld from the client account D: Incorrect withdrawal from the client account E: Delay in paying in client funds F: Client funds not paid to the client G: Incorrect monies paid into the...