Related party meaning

Applications under Part 18 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 This flowchart outlines the steps to follow for applications made under Part 18 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010. It applies where a party: seeks to make an application within ongoing family proceedings; intends to commence proceedings where the rules prescribe no other procedure; wishes to make an application in connection with proceedings that have already concluded. For detailed practical guidance on the steps in the flowchart—including relevant overviews, Practice Notes, precedents, procedural guides, client guides, legislation, forms and further reading—see: Applications under FPR 2010, Parts 18 and 19—overview, or use the related documents on the right-hand side of the flowchart. For information on all Lexis+® UK flowcharts covering a wide range of family law issues and the procedural steps to be taken in various family proceedings, see: Index of family flowcharts...

This Checklist This Checklist outlines which provisions in a lease and other relevant associated documentation should be carefully examined to ascertain whether a right of light subsists. A right of light is an easement granting a landowner the entitlement to receive natural light through an opening in a building on its land. The owner of the land encumbered by that right (the 'servient Building') must not impede or disturb it without first obtaining consent. For any proposed development, it is therefore essential to identify neighbouring properties that could be enjoying a right of light (the 'dominant Building'). For further information on rights of light, see the following Practice Notes: Establishing and maintaining rights of light Rights of light—obstruction notices Rights of light claims Rights of light—insurance for developers Section 2 of the Prescription Act 1832 (PA 1832) requires actual enjoyment of light, meaning that those with less than a freehold interest can acquire a right of light in their own...

For more practical, step-by-step guidance on solar projects, including viewpoints from several jurisdictions, consult the textbook also: Solar Power: A Practical Handbook. Negotiating a rooftop lease for solar PV panels When arranging a rooftop lease for solar PV panels, the matters at stake will differ according to the interests of the party you represent. Those issues shift depending upon whether one acts for the landlord, the occupier, or the solar tenant. Here, 'landlord' describes the owner of the freehold or a long lease of the relevant building; 'occupier' means the party in occupation; and 'solar tenant' is the entity proposing to install and own the panels. The solar tenant may equally be the building’s occupier, or could be a dedicated solar developer. A growing number of landlords are fitting solar panels to their properties—either via the same corporate vehicle that holds the building, or through a related solar company. This note addresses rooftop leases and, accordingly, assumes a structure in which the solar tenant is a distinct legal...

On 7 April 2026, Dyson secured an interim injunction against Chinese rival Dreame after the UPC tribunal held that the ‘Dazzle’ hair styler infringed Dyson’s patent, compelling a suspension of sales throughout all UPC Member States and Spain. The Hamburg Local Division explained that including Spain (despite it not being a UPC Member State) was warranted because Dreame’s EU-based importer was actively putting the goods on the Spanish market, thereby creating a sufficiently close jurisdictional connection to hear the claims together under EU jurisdictional rules. The panel, chaired by Sabine Klepsch, declined to stretch the order to the UK. Citing the UK–EU Windsor Framework, under which certain EU product safety requirements still apply in Northern Ireland and oblige non‑EU manufacturers to appoint an EU-based representative to place goods there, Dyson argued this regulatory nexus tied UK sales to the EU and could ground UPC jurisdiction. The judges disagreed, concluding those provisions are principally intended to smooth trade between Northern Ireland and the EU, not to create an adequate legal link...

Fairbanks v Change Grow Live , ET Case Number:2409700/2023 Employment Judge Paul Humble, in a decision released on 18 November 2024, found that the drug and alcohol rehabilitation charity Change Grow Live did not subject the claimant, Mrs Fairbanks, to unfair treatment on the grounds of philosophical belief. The judge concluded that Fairbanks had not, in fact, advanced any philosophical beliefs. 'A claimant cannot simply come to a hearing, set out four views, however sincerely held, and expect them to qualify as philosophical beliefs. Nor does belonging to a political party, on its own, amount to a philosophical belief', the tribunal determined formally...

Muller UK and Ireland Group LLP and others v HMRC [2026] EWCA Civ 248 The second, third and fourth appellants (the Corporate Members) were part of the Muller multinational corporate group trading in dairy products. In 2013, those appellants moved their respective trades and assets, including intellectual property and goodwill, to the fourth appellant, Muller UK and Ireland Group LLP (LLP), receiving membership units in the LLP in exchange. The LLP recorded amortisation of the assets and goodwill (the Material Assets) in its accounts on a straight-line basis over five years. When calculating their taxable profits from the LLP for the 2013–18 accounting periods, the Corporate Members claimed deductions for that amortisation under Part 8 of the Corporation Tax Act 2009 (CTA 2009). HMRC rejected the claims on the footing that the Material Assets did not satisfy the Part 8 ‘gateway’ in CTA 2009, s 882(1)(b) (as then in force). That provision removed from Part 8’s scope assets obtained from a related party. While Part 8 does not expressly...

This Resource Note spotlights commentary, analysis and materials to aid interpretation and give practical guidance on applying Chapters 1, 1A, 1B and 1C of the Disclosure Guidance and Transparency Rules: DTR 1, DTR 1A, DTR 1B and DTR 1C respectively. Materials referenced here include, where pertinent: the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) Handbook FCA Knowledge Base guidance—Procedural notes and Technical notes (constituting formal guidance and binding on the FCA) FCA consultation papers, discussion papers, policy statements, feedback statements and warnings Primary Market Bulletins and other FCA publications former UKLA technical and procedural notes and the UKLA newsletter List!, where still relevant to interpreting or applying a provision assimilated EU legislation EU Directives and EU Regulations, where relevant to interpreting a provision Lexis+ UK analysis and resources Setting the scene What it covers: DTR 1 sets out the Disclosure guidance, explaining its scope and purpose; DTR 1A sets out the transparency rules with their scope and purpose;...

Your complaints handling framework (see Practice Note: How to implement and maintain effective complaints handling procedures—law firms) should reflect the scale and character of your firm. Recognise that some circumstances will call for a more bespoke response, while still being managed within your overall complaints processes. This How-to-guide highlights examples where additional factors may need attention beyond those covered by your standard complaints handling framework... Complaints about the bill Concerns about bills arise fairly often. You must handle a billing complaint in exactly the same manner as any other complaint. The Legal Ombudsman (LeO) has issued guidance on Complaints about legal costs, having identified recurring themes. Although aimed particularly at matters funded by conditional fee agreements, it offers a broader view of LeO’s general approach. When assessing cost-related complaints, LeO will consider whether, from the outset, you ensured the client fully grasped what they would, or might, be required to pay. The guidance also sets out LeO’s expectations across a range of scenarios and questions where clarity on...

The UK’s rules on hybrid and other mismatches Since 1 January 2017, the UK’s hybrid and other mismatch rules (described in this Practice Note as the hybrid rules) have been in force, designed to neutralise tax mismatches arising from how a hybrid instrument or hybrid entity is treated for tax. Although the hybrid rules typically apply to cross-border dealings involving two or more jurisdictions, they can also apply to transactions that are entirely UK domestic. They specifically address: deduction/non-inclusion mismatches (D/NI mismatches), i.e. where a payment under a hybrid mismatch arrangement is deductible in the payer jurisdiction for tax purposes but is not included in the taxable income of a payee or a related party investor; and double deduction cases (DD cases), i.e. where a payment under a hybrid mismatch arrangement gives rise to more than one tax deduction. For more detail on the hybrid rules, see Practice Note: Hybrid mismatches—introduction to the rules. For an overview in table form of...

The Schedule 1 Definitions 1.1 In this Schedule: Adequate Procedures – must be interpreted in line with BA 2010 and any guidance issued under it; Associated Person – means any or all of: (a) the officers, employees, agents, subcontractors, subsidiaries, and individuals Associated With a party (Associates); and (b) persons Associated With any of those Associates, in every instance engaged in carrying out services for, or on behalf of, that party, the Services, and/or this Agreement; and Associated With – where used: (a) in paragraph 2 and in relation to bribery, is to be construed in accordance with BA 2010 and guidance issued under it; (b) in paragraph 4 and regarding the facilitation of tax evasion, is to be construed in accordance with Part 3 of CFA 2017 and guidance issued under it; (c) in paragraph 5 and as regards fraud, is to be construed in accordance with Part 5 of ECCTA 2023 and guidance issued under it; BA 2010 – means the...

This Licence is entered into on [ insert date ] (the Commencement Date): Parties [ insert licensor name ], a company incorporated in [ England and Wales ] under number [ insert company number ], whose registered office is at [ insert address ] (the Licensor); and [ insert licensee name ], a company incorporated in [ England and Wales ] under number [ insert company number ], whose registered office is at [ insert address ] (the Licensee), (each of the Licensor and the Licensee being a party and, together, the Licensor and the Licensee are the parties). Background (A) [ Explain the relationship between the Licensor and the Licensee. ] (B) [ The Licensor has entered into an agreement with the Licensee [ dated [ insert date ] ] (the Main Agreement) for [ insert other description of relevant transaction (referencing any relevant related agreements) ] (‘ Transaction ’). ] (C) The Licensor has agreed to...

1 Introduction to the policy 1.1 [ Firm name ] must implement appropriate systems and controls to combat money laundering, terrorist financing and proliferation financing under the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 (MLR 2017), SI 2017/692, as amended. 1.2 For further detail on MLR 2017, see section 10. 2 Scope and application 2.1 This policy sets out the procedures we have developed to comply with MLR 2017, as amended. 2.2 This policy applies to all [ our offices, ] employees, officers, consultants, contractors and to other workers, including agency workers, casual workers [ , volunteers ] [ , interns ] and home workers. 2.3 All staff must be familiar with this policy and comply with its terms. 2.4 This policy does not form part of any contract of employment and we may amend it at any time. 3 Responsibility for AML, CTF and counter-proliferation financing...

An unincorporated association is not a legal entity In principle, it lacks legal personality and therefore cannot bring or face proceedings in its own name; this was the stance in London Association for Protection of Trade v Greenlands Limited. The position was examined in detail in Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford v Broughton, a matter arising from a campaign by the Animal Liberation Front and related bodies. The conventional course is to seek a representation order, allowing a named member or office-holder to be joined as a party ‘on behalf of the members of the association’. Yet time pressures—particularly an approaching limitation deadline—may make obtaining such an order impracticable, prompting a prospective claimant to ask whether the association can be joined in its own name. As recorded in University of Oxford, there have been instances where the court has in fact made orders directly against an association. Several first‑instance rulings placed before the court show orders made against protest groups which have been...

Termination payments qualifying for £30,000 exemption As set out in Practice Note: Termination payments qualifying for £30,000 exemption, where a compensation payment for loss of office or employment is made in circumstances where it does not fall to be taxed as: earnings within section 62 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (ITEPA 2003) (see Practice Note: Termination payments taxed as earnings) benefits-in-kind (see Practice Note: How employment income is taxed—non-cash earnings or benefits) benefits from an employer-financed retirement benefits scheme employment-related securities (see: Employment-related securities—overview) disguised remuneration, where termination payments or benefits are provided by a third party (such as an employee benefit trust) rather than the employer (see: Disguised remuneration and EBTs—overview) restrictive undertakings (see Practice Note: Taxation of payments for restrictive covenants or undertakings) and for terminations for loss of office since 6 April 2018...

Q&A: Is a solicitor bound by an undertaking that they cannot complete because the client has changed solicitors? This addresses a scenario in which a solicitor is unable to fulfil an undertaking owing to factors wholly beyond their control. It notes that decisions of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) abound with rationalisations from defaulting practitioners for failing to comply, such as claiming the promise related to a client for whom they no longer act. However, ceasing to act does not absolve those solicitors from their ongoing professional duty to honour the undertaking...