Strict settlement meaning

This Table The table provides practitioners with a convenient, practical overview of how a strict settlement contrasts with a trust for sale, helping ensure the appropriate grant application is properly made. It is intended to be read alongside Practice Note: Settled land grants for context as well...

In this issue: Horizon scanning Worker status and categories Immigration Pay Remuneration Taxation Diversity and the gender pay gap Maternity, parents and carers Whistleblowing Data protection and staff information Confidentiality, obligations and restrictions: enforcement Financial services and banking: employment matters Bribery, modern slavery, tax evasion and fraud Issues arising on termination Employment Tribunals Civil courts and alternative dispute resolution Dates for your diary Trackers Employment resources on Lexis+® LexTalk® Employment: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Horizon scanning Updated Employment Rights Bill to be considered by the House of Lords The updated Employment Rights Bill (ERB), transmitted from the House of Commons to the House of Lords, was issued on 14 March 2025. Its second reading in the House of Lords is scheduled for 27 March 2025...

In this issue: Arbitration in England and Wales International arbitration Institutional and ad hoc arbitration Other arbitration and ADR-related news and developments LexTalk®Arbitration: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Useful information Arbitration in England and Wales Disclosure of confidential arbitration documents to facilitate policing of an undertaking The High Court of England and Wales, in Bourlakova v Edelweiss Investments Inv [2025] EWHC 3085 (Ch), directed the production of materials connected to a Moscow arbitration in which the respondent, Edelweiss, participated. Although the relevant arbitral rules required confidentiality, (i) recognised exceptions applied; and (ii) in any event, disclosure carried no realistic prospect of criminal prosecution. Weighing the issues, the court held that confidentiality concerns were surpassed by the potential jeopardy to Edelweiss’ assets arising from an arbitral award, particularly given the strong policy in favour of enforcement of arbitral awards under the New York Convention. See News Analysis: Disclosure of...

The ad hoc committee’s decision of 6 March 2025 in Peteris Pildegovics and SIA North Star v Kingdom of Norway sheds light on the procedural subtleties and evidential limits that frame annulment under the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). The applicants, seeking to set aside an arbitral award, pursued targeted disclosure, anchoring their request in serious assertions of procedural impropriety and professional misconduct by the respondent, the Kingdom of Norway. The committee therefore had to decide whether to permit a disclosure phase at this late stage, assessing the purportedly exceptional circumstances advanced in support of the application. The order offers insight into the friction between the permissible ambit of evidence in annulment proceedings and the safeguarding of privilege and procedural regularity. It typifies the increasing sophistication of investor–state disputes and highlights the strict confines on reopening factual disputes post-award within the ICSID architecture. Tracing the order’s contours reveals the constraints imposed by international procedural standards and the careful equilibrium annulment committees must maintain between procedural fairness and...

Introduction Planning decisions and actions by local planning authorities (LPAs), the Secretary of State and other public bodies can be contested in the courts where the decision was unlawful. Most planning decisions are capable of challenge by a High Court application for judicial review (see Practice Note: Planning judicial review). However, certain statutory schemes governing particular decisions or acts expressly preclude court challenges, including judicial review, save through a statutory application. Put simply, the legislation states that a decision or action may only be questioned under a specified statutory route. Such proceedings are termed statutory reviews or statutory challenges. This Practice Note concentrates on the arrangements for applications for statutory planning review (usually called ‘applications’ rather than ‘claims’, though the labels are used interchangeably), which, in the planning context, comprise: applications under section 287 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990) concerning the validity of simplified planning zone schemes and certain highway and other orders applications under TCPA 1990, s 288...

Arbitration under the Abu Dhabi Commercial Conciliation & Arbitration Centre (ADCCAC) Where an arbitration clause designates the ADCCAC, the proceedings are governed by its Procedural Regulations of Arbitration 2013 (the 2013 Regulations). This Practice Note relies on the ‘official’ English text of the 2013 Regulations. Translation inconsistencies exist between Arabic and English regarding whether terms are mandatory or permissive, particularly in the rendering of compulsory and discretionary wording. The authoritative version is Arabic, which will prevail if any controversy arises over the meaning of the 2013 Regulations. For enforcement purposes, it is essential that any arbitral award satisfies all requirements imposed by the rules under which it is made, and strict adherence to procedural form is required. The provisions extend to every arbitral award, not solely a final award; the Panel (the ADCCAC expression for the tribunal) may issue provisional, partial, or final awards (art 28.1). Awards must be differentiated from procedural orders, which under the 2013 Regulations (and frequently in practice), may—if the parties agree, or, where there...

This Practice Note sets out how to challenge a determination by Revenue Scotland concerning any of the devolved Scottish taxes. Where appropriate, it contrasts the Scottish route with the process for contesting an HMRC decision before the UK tribunals. The UK process is described in more depth in Practice Note: Appealing an HMRC decision. Be aware that strict deadlines apply throughout the appeals journey; missing any deadline can result in forfeiting the right to appeal. Moreover, Revenue Scotland’s handling of tax disagreements, encompassing litigation conduct and approaches to resolution, is anchored in the principles contained in the Revenue Scotland Settlement and Litigation Principles. It highlights comparison and distinction to assist users navigating each regime. Strict observance is essential to maintain appeal rights. For a primer on the Scottish tax tribunals, which hear appeals on devolved tax issues in Scotland, consult Practice Note: Scotland: devolved taxes and the Scottish tribunal system. See also Practice Note: Devolved taxes in the UK—Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Further related guidance is referenced in notes...