Anticipation meaning

In this issue: Funding and investment Types of private pension schemes Scheme amendments The Pensions Ombudsman Daily and weekly news alerts Dates for your diary Trackers Funding and investment Final draft DB funding code of practice laid before Parliament on 18 July 2024 After a lengthy wait and anticipation, on 26 July 2024 the Pensions Regulator (TPR) finally released the final draft of the eagerly awaited defined benefit (DB) funding code of practice (the DB funding code), which will apply to scheme valuations with effective dates on or after 22 September 2024, supplanting the code. The final draft DB funding code was placed before Parliament on 18 July 2024 and is intended to mirror the Occupational Pension Schemes (Funding and Investment Strategy and Amendment) Regulations 2024, SI 2024/462 (the Funding and Investment Strategy Regulations 2024), which took effect on 6 April 2024 and, as with the DB funding code, applies to valuations with effective dates on...

Dowman Imports Limited v 2 Toobz Limited [2020] EWHC 291 (Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? Unjust enrichment This ruling affirms and refines the approach to restitutionary claims when services are supplied in anticipation of a contract being finalised: Four core questions must be addressed: has the defendant obtained a benefit? was that benefit gained at the claimant’s expense? was the enrichment unjust? are any defences available? If those questions are answered in the claimant’s favour, the court will determine the value of the unjust enrichment by objectively assessing the market value or price of the services, akin to a quantum meruit. The defendant might try to show that they personally valued the services below market rate (subjective devaluation) to cut down or defeat the claim. That attempt fails if the claimant proves either that: the benefit was incontrovertible; or the defendant requested or freely accepted the benefit ...

Abdulrazaq and others v Hassan and others [2021] EWHC 3252 (QB) What are the practical implications of this case? The judgment’s central interest lies in its treatment of the claimants’ contention that the impugned words were not, in truth, a reply issued by the defendants to an attack from the claimant. Rather, the claimants advanced that those words amounted to a riposte to an attack they had themselves published in expectation of a likely assault by the defendants (that is, a riposte to a reply published in anticipation). On that basis, the claimants said the privilege ought not to extend to the defendants’ riposte to the claimants’ attack/anticipated reply. Typically, reply-to-attack privilege does not cover the initial publication—the attack—but does protect the reply, irrespective of whether the first publication is defamatory. The claimants maintained that a riposte to a predicted attack should fall outside the privilege. Their position failed on the evidence, yet the judge went on to remark upon the issue. He indicated that, had it been...

This Practice Note summarises the confiscation regime set out in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002), together with the changes introduced by Schedule 8 to the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA 2023), insofar as it operates in Scotland. Schedule 8 amended the Proceeds of Crime Act 2022 to make provisions in connection with cryptoassets and confiscation orders. Those amendments have not yet been brought into force. Introduction to Scottish confiscation law and procedure Confiscation is the mechanism by which, after conviction, an offender’s financial gain from offending is taken away. The POCA 2002 confiscation provisions are designed to facilitate the recovery and seizure of the proceeds of crime in order to: disincentivise criminal activity, and prevent offenders from retaining the proceeds of crime following conviction This Practice Note addresses the Scottish confiscation process and procedure. For the parallel provisions in England and Wales, see the subtopic: Restraint and Confiscation. A confiscation order requires...

Date of disposal The moment an asset is regarded as disposed of determines the period in which any gain is chargeable to capital gains tax (CGT), or when a loss can be set against other gains. This timing is particularly significant where CGT rates shift between tax years, or within a tax year, as happened in 2024–25. The disposal date also governs when any CGT is payable—usually by 31 January following the close of the tax year in which the disposal occurs. Different rules apply to disposals by non-residents and for UK residential property, as outlined below. How the disposal date is established depends on the form of disposal made. CGT is normally due by 31 January after the relevant tax year ends. Changes in CGT rates across tax years (or within 2024–25) make timing critical. Non-resident CGT Where a non-resident taxpayer disposed of a UK residential property between 6 April 2015 and 5 April 2019, the disposal had to be...

This month has brought reports on potential thresholds for a planned mandatory merger control regime in Australia, together with an announcement by the Australian government of a review of competition law (including merger control) and the creation of a Competition Taskforce, the Competition and Commission Protection Commission in Ireland issuing fresh merger guidance ahead of commencement of the Competition (Amendment) Act 2022, the arrival of a new transaction value threshold in Russia, the Ukrainian Parliament approving reforms to the competition law regime, including as regards merger control, and changes to merger control thresholds in Uzbekistan. Australia—reports of possible introduction of mandatory merger control regime; government also announces review of competition laws and sets up a taskforce There are two items to note from Australia. First, material reportedly obtained from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) under Freedom of Information points to deals involving companies with turnover above AUD$400m, or a transaction value exceeding A$35m, triggering a mandatory filing with the ACCC under suggested changes to the Australian...

Parties This Agreement is entered into on [ insert day and month ] 20[ insert year ] [ Insert name ] of [ insert full address ] ( PARTY A ) [ Insert name ] of [ insert full address ] ( PARTY B ) Whereas (A) Intended [ marriage OR civil partnership ] This Agreement is prepared in anticipation of, and is contingent upon, the intended [ marriage OR civil partnership ] of PARTY A and PARTY B on [ insert date ] 20[ insert year ], or on such later date as PARTY A and PARTY B may agree (‘the [ marriage OR civil partnership ] ’) (B) Children [ (i) ] PARTY A and PARTY B jointly have [ a child OR children ], [ name(s) and date(s) of birth ]. AND/OR [ (ii) ] PARTY A has [ a child OR children ] [ name(s) and date(s) of birth ] and PARTY B is...

What is adjudication? You have asked us to set out what adjudication involves and how the process commonly unfolds, in the context of [ [ your proposal to enter into a construction contract with ] [ insert name of the counterparty ] OR [ in anticipation of adjudication proceedings between ] you and [ insert name of the counterparty ] ]. Adjudication is a mechanism intended to help parties resolve disputes quickly and at relatively modest cost. Pursuant to the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (HGCRA 1996), parties to construction contracts have the right to commence adjudication at any time. The dispute is referred to an adjudicator, who acts as an independent decision-maker. In most cases the adjudicator will be a construction industry professional (e.g. a quantity surveyor or engineer), or a lawyer with construction experience. They will consider the arguments advanced by both parties, and may draw on their own initiative and expertise, before reaching a decision on how the dispute should be determined. The party...