Paying parent meaning

Lamesa Investments Ltd v Cynergy Bank Ltd [2019] EWHC 1877 (Comm) What did the court decide? Judge Mark Pelling held that Cynergy Bank was entitled to rely on a provision in its agreement with Lamesa Investments that allowed it to withhold payments without falling into default if any law, regulation or court order prevented the transfer of the sums. At the core of the dispute was a £30m loan that Cynergy Bank, then known as Bank of Cyprus UK, obtained from Lamesa Investments in December 2017, under which interest was contractually due to Lamesa Investments twice a year. The ruling records that in April 2018 the US Department of the Treasury Office for Foreign Assets Control placed Viktor Vekselberg (Vekselberg), the owner of Lamesa Investments’ parent company, on its list of 'specially designated nationals' as part of a drive against Russian oligarchs and their companies. The sanctions barred US citizens from dealing with Vekselberg, and, as a consequence of his indirect ownership, Lamesa Investments then became a 'blocked person',...

Original news Re Lehman Brothers Europe Ltd (in administration) [2017] All ER (D) 44 (Aug), [2017] EWHC 2031 (Ch). In a significant ruling, the court endorsed a plan by the joint administrators to appoint a director to LBEL, already in administration, so that surplus monies could be paid to its sole member, Lehman Brothers Holdings plc (LBH), rather than to a creditor. The proposal was found to be lawful, practical and advantageous. The application outlined a pragmatic route to unlock value for the member once unsecured debts had been met. How, then, did the administrators approach distributions to members? The principal entities were LBEL, its parent LBH, and an associated company, Lehman Brothers Limited (LBL), each in administration. After paying LBEL’s unsecured creditors 100 pence in the pound, LBEL’s administrators retained a substantial surplus. They were, however, unable to distribute that balance, in part due to an unresolved LBL claim against LBEL’s estate. A settlement of the Waterfall III proceedings was proposed. Under that compromise, LBL would withdraw its...

The owner of gambling giants Ladbrokes and Coral The parent of two of the UK’s biggest names in the field reported stronger full-year figures on 6 March 2025 as losses narrowed. Twelve months earlier it had posted heavy losses, largely the consequence of the £615m deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) reached with the UK’s tax authority in December 2023. Entain, formerly called GVC, avoided prosecution by paying to settle allegations that it failed to put adequate procedures in place to prevent bribery at Turkish company Sportingbet, which it owned from 2011 to 2017. In the days following the settlement, Jette Nygaard-Andersen resigned as Entain’s chief executive. The group weathered the initial turmoil, yet moving on may prove difficult, with issues linked to the episode still looming large. In August 2024, UK law firm Fox Williams filed a £150m claim against the company on behalf of shareholders...

This Practice Note considers statutory adoption pay (SAP) and contractual adoption payments. It also examines eligibility criteria, the meaning of employed earner, the duration of entitlement, notice obligations, the evidence required, the length of time SAP is payable, rates of pay, and liability, including where an individual has more than one employer. It addresses outcomes where a child dies or a placement breaks down, circumstances in which SAP is not due, record-keeping duties, and how recoupment operates. Finally, it explores how contractual sick pay interacts with SAP, adoptions from outside the UK, and contracting out. A parent taking adoption leave (see Practice Note: Adoption leave) may qualify for SAP for part of that leave. They may receive payment for time off to attend adoption appointments (see Practice Note: Time off work for adoption appointments). Where a child is placed for adoption, the adopter and a second person—who must be the adopter’s spouse, civil partner, or partner—may, if they choose, share up to 37 of the 39 weeks of pay...

This Practice Note outlines the jurisdiction and criteria for securing child maintenance under the statutory regime run by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, operating through the Child Maintenance Service (CMS), a division of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). It further explains the process for obtaining a maintenance calculation, the applicable eligibility criteria, and the relevant formulae used by the CMS. For consistency, the expression non-resident parent (NRP) refers to the paying (or potentially paying) parent, while person with care (PWC) refers to the individual (not always a parent) who receives (or may receive) child support maintenance under the statutory scheme. Introduction The Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008 (CMOPA 2008) amended the Child Support Act 1991 (CSA 1991), creating the third child support scheme, which was rolled out to all new applications on 25 November 2013. After the closure of the Child Support Agency in 2018, thereafter every application has been handled by the CMS and processed within that system...

The Parent of a Child Student route Under the Immigration Rules, Appendix Child Student, the Parent of a Child Student route allows a parent to travel with, or later join, a child who either already holds, or is concurrently seeking, Child Student permission as defined there. The child must be between four and 11 years old and enrolled at an independent, fee‑paying school in the UK, which cannot be a state school or academy anywhere. This immigration route permits only one parent of the child to be present in the UK. Introduced on 24 April 2015, it replaced the ‘parent of a child at school’ route and at that time was titled ‘Parent of a Tier 4 (Child)’. From 5 October 2020, in line with the replacement of the Tier 4 (Child) category, it adopted the name Parent of a Child Student for this route...

The statutory formula for child maintenance under the Child Support Act 1991 (CSA 1991) The statutory formula for child maintenance under the Child Support Act 1991 (CSA 1991) does not link the amount payable to whether the paying parent has contact with the children, other than insofar as the shared care rules operate. Under CSA 1991, s 3(5), it is recognised that, for the purposes of the Act, there can be more than one person with care in relation to the same qualifying child. The Child Support Maintenance Calculation Regulations 2012, SI 2012/2677, reg 46(2), further provide that any calculation must be grounded in the number of nights the non-resident parent is expected to care for the qualifying child overnight during the 12 months commencing on the effective date of the relevant calculation decision. The Child Maintenance Service (CMS) retains a discretion to take into account a shorter timeframe where appropriate in making that assessment...