Cause or permit meaning

At the High Court, Judge Andrew Henshaw determined that six actions brought by lessors and Ukrainian airlines against their insurers belong in the Ukrainian courts, finding no compelling justification to keep them in London. He concluded that the insurance policies’ exclusive jurisdiction provisions must be observed, holding them binding on the claimants, effective and applicable to every cause of action. He further found no sufficient reasons to permit the proceedings to continue in this jurisdiction. The claimants contended that the leases did not stipulate any governing court or law for the underlying insurance or reinsurance arrangements. The insurers, however, maintained—per the judgment—that the lessors and airlines had the chance to shape the manner in which the aircraft were insured and reinsured, yet did not insist on any forum for disputes. Judge Henshaw additionally held that the clauses remain enforceable even though they do not nominate a particular Ukrainian court. The judge added that, despite the impact of the war with Russia, the Kyiv City commercial...

In this issue: Practice Compliance outlook Financial sanctions AML, CTF & counter-proliferation financing Other financial crime Data protection Other matters This week’s Practice Compliance updates Daily and weekly news alerts New and refreshed content Practice Compliance forecast Practice Compliance forecast New Practice Compliance forecast as at 23 July 2024 Our latest Practice Compliance forecast (dated 23 July 2024) has now launched. This month we cover: (1) three new Bills unveiled in the King’s Speech on 17 July 2024 — the Digital Information and Smart Data Bill, the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill, and the Equality (Race and Disability) Bill; (2) an update on the FCA’s consultation on the handling of PEPs, (3) the results of the SRA consultation on its draft business plan and budget, and (4) the closure of the SRA consultation on reforms to permit it to regulate CILEX members. See News Analysis: New Practice Compliance forecast as at 23 July...

The criminal offences The Protection of Children Act 1978 (PCA 1978), the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (CJA 1988) and the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (CJA 2009) set the framework governing the creation, possession, publication and distribution of indecent images of children. the taking, creation, permitting the making or taking, possessing with a view to distributing, publishing or causing publication, and distributing or showing of indecent images of children (PCA 1978, s 1(1)) the possession of an indecent photograph of a child (CJA 1988, s 160) the possession of prohibited images of children (CJA 2009, s 62) This Practice Note concentrates chiefly on the offences arising under the PCA 1978. For information on the offence of possession of indecent images of children under CJA 1988, see Practice Note: Possession of indecent photographs of a child and prohibited images of children. For information on the offence of possessing a paedophile manual under section 69 of the Serious Crime Act 2015, see Practice...

Introduction What is groundwater? In brief, groundwater is water stored beneath the surface. Rainfall gathers and then infiltrates the soil, percolating through soils and rocks into aquifers—layers of porous rock or sediment. The British Geological Survey notes that groundwater supplies around one third of the public water in England and makes an important contribution in Wales and Scotland. What is groundwater activity Government guidance explains that a groundwater activity includes: discharging a pollutant that causes, or could cause, a direct or indirect input to groundwater any other discharge that may lead to a direct or indirect pollutant input to groundwater an activity subject to a Schedule 22 notice that has taken effect an activity, carried out as part of another class of regulated facility, that may cause such a discharge The guidance further states it is an offence to cause or knowingly permit a groundwater activity unless authorised by a permit or registered as exempt. Environmental...

Practice Note on frustration This Practice Note offers a practical steer on assessing whether an unforeseen occurrence has frustrated a contract. It should be read alongside Practice Note: Discharge by frustration. Frustration is a common law doctrine in English law. It brings an agreement to an immediate close where an unexpected supervening event frustrates the bargain, making performance impossible, unlawful or so fundamentally different from what was originally agreed. Where frustration bites, all future duties under the contract are extinguished. Money paid before the supervening event and discharge can be reclaimed, while sums not yet due cease to be payable, subject to the court’s discretion under the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 (LR(FC)A 1943) to permit recovery of expenses previously incurred. Establishing frustration is notoriously difficult. The doctrine injects uncertainty into contractual dealings, a result the courts regard unfavourably, and so it is applied within narrow limits (The Super Servant Two). For a tabular overview of the key frustration authorities, see Practice Note: Frustration—key and illustrative...

Position where the contract for sale is silent in relation to environmental liabilities If a land sale contract says nothing about environmental liabilities, allocation of responsibility turns on various factors, including the nature of the liability, who caused or knowingly permitted the issue, and when it took place, depending on the circumstances in which it occurred. By way of illustration, there are several liability regimes for land contamination, including liability for contaminated land under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA 1990) (see Practice Note: Land contamination—potential liabilities). Under EPA 1990, Part IIA, liability is both strict and retrospective. Class A persons, namely those who cause or knowingly permit the contamination, will be liable...