Featured documents
R (Greyhound Board of Great Britain Ltd) v Welsh Ministers [2026] EWHC 670 (Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling reinforces the constitutional divide between the courts and the legislature. It explains that the scheme and framework of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (GWA 2006) embody that separation of powers, and that any judicial attempt to recognise and enforce a common law obligation on Welsh Ministers to consult prior to introducing legislation in the Senedd would trespass upon that boundary. This is not a departure from established principle; case law has already upheld comparable rules for lawmakers in Scotland and at Westminster. However, this is the first express confirmation of the position for Welsh lawmakers, and the first time this dimension of the GWA 2006 has been analysed in such depth. The court examined earlier
The solution arrived through the United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC), a quasi‑judicial body handling mass claims, created under UN Security Council Resolution 687. By addressing environmental harm—most notably via its ‘F4’ claim class—the UNCC set a seminal benchmark shaping how international law and contemporary arbitral panels allocate financial responsibility for wartime ecological devastation. With present-day wars in areas such as Eastern Europe and the Middle East bringing dam breaches, strikes on chemical facilities, and the burning of farmland, the UNCC’s legacy endures as an essential reference point for states, global investors, and companies engaged in post‑conflict arbitration. The F4 claims: Quantifying the unquantifiable Prior to the 1990s, mechanisms in international law for war reparations overwhelmingly favoured property loss, foregone earnings, and bodily injury. The natural world was commonly treated as a mute, non-compensable victim of armed hostilities...
Understanding the farming business as a business Many farms still use long-standing structures that arose by habit, not strategy. Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common. While once effective, such setups can cause major issues around succession, tax planning and involving the next generation. A corporate team can take a fresh, business-led view of the farm, asking: Who owns the land and other critical assets? Who manages daily operations? Who carries the risk and who enjoys the return? What is the enduring plan for succession? From this review, the team can confirm whether the current setup is fit for purpose or if an alternative — for example an updated partnership agreement, a company, a limited liability partnership, or a blended model — would better meet the family’s aims. Tax efficiency through joined-up advice Tax sits at the centre of most
Most recent News
Hymans Robertson LLP Hymans Robertson LLP stated that numerous providers still face significant effort and resource demands to overhaul their practices and processes in order to meet the FCA’s consumer duty expectations. It also observed that many pension providers are still absorbing the extent of changes needed to satisfy its standards, warning firms not to misjudge the time required to prepare for the incoming rules. The FCA is anticipated to set out its definitive rules, with the implementation date, before the close of July 2022. The draft package sets out a wide suite of obligations for banks, insurers and other financial sector firms to make sure clients are not exposed to financial detriment. Karen Brolly, head of financial services at Hymans Robertson, said the new regime for the sector......
Re Michael Bernard Mc Namara; Wilson and another (joint trustees in bankruptcy of Michael Bernard Mc Namara) v Mc Namara and others [2022] EWHC 243 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? The applicants were prevented from advancing a fresh point after a Court of Justice ruling. Their argument—that the Court of Justice’s conclusion that WRPA 1999, s 11 was contrary to Article 49 TFEU, save where justified in the public interest, meant the UK High Court had to assess justification—was rejected. The Court of Justice is not an appellate body issuing instructions to a lower court; apart from delivering definitive statements of law, it lacks authority to direct the national court’s procedure or determinations. It followed that any justification case had to be raised within the existing proceedings, and the applicants had not done so before the...
A D Bly Groundworks and Civil Engineering Ltd and CHR Travel Ltd v HMRC [2021] UKFTT 445 ( TC) Both taxpayers used the same firm of chartered accountants to set up a UURBS, under which they undertook to provide directors and certain key employees with a pension at a later date. The taxpayers recorded provisions in their accounts for their liability to make those pension payments in future, thereby recognising expected obligations to be settled in due course as and when those benefits fell due. For each relevant period, the provisions were set at between 80% and 100% of profits before tax, respectively. The UURBS was notified to HMRC under the disclosure of tax avoidance scheme provisions. The only issue for the FTT was whether the provisions were allowable deductions. It determined that the provision of......
Original report HM Treasury issues its response to the consultation on the 2015 public service pension scheme reforms, LNB News 04/02/2021 109 What was the background to the consultation? In April 2015, the principal public service pension arrangements were overhauled with the declared aim of making them fairer, more sustainable and affordable, reflecting the 2011 Hutton Report. Change was deemed necessary as expenditure on the legacy schemes had risen over time. The government viewed the new designs as more progressive, seeking to smooth pension value across pay levels. Consequently, some lower and middle earners saw improved outcomes under the reworked schemes. A further feature was protection for those within ten years of retirement, who were excluded, wholly or in part, from the new schemes and kept in their legacy arrangements (or treated in a manner ensuring they were no worse off than if they had stayed in...
Burns v Burns and others [2021] EWHC 75 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? This judgment illustrates how the approaches in Ivey v Genting Casinos ( UK) Ltd [2017] UKSC 67 and Group Seven Ltd (a co incorporated under the laws of Malta) and another company v Notable Services LLP and another and other cases [2019] EWCA Civ 614 can be applied in practice at first instance, where a claimant seeks to secure a dishonest assistance finding within the constraints of the summary judgment process. It also emphasises that, in a suitable case, exposing trust assets to risk by a non‑trustee—for example, an operator of an unregulated investment scheme which, on a proper reading of the relevant documentation, involved unauthorised use—may amount to dishonest behaviour. That assessment turns on the defendant’s actual knowledge of the underlying facts and the court’s...
Re Legal and General Assurance Society Ltd and another company [2020] EWHC 2299 ( Ch), [2020] All ER ( D) 37 ( Sep) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling is plainly positive for insurers and banks seeking to utilise the Part VII transfer mechanism under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 ( FSMA 2000). Notably, the court’s method of distinguishing this transfer from that in Re Prudential Assurance Company Ltd and others [2019] EWHC 2245 ( Ch) is especially helpful, enabling many schemes to progress without companies being overly anxious about contravening the Re Prudential decision. That stance should reassure stakeholders relying on established practice while still acknowledging the court’s vigilance arising from the earlier decision and debate. However, it would be incorrect to claim that the Re Prudential judgment—at least pending the outcome of the intended...
The pensions watchdog ( TPR) has issued a Determination Notice under Section 99(4) of the...
Man Ching Yuen v Landy Chet Kin Wong , First-tier Tribunal ( Property Chamber), 2020 (ref 2016/1089) What are the practical implications of this case? Every day, innumerable deeds are completed across the country. By virtue of section 1(3) of the Law of Property ( Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 ( LP( MP) A 1989), a deed must be signed in the presence of a witness who attests the signing. Yet what amounts to presence? Could witnessing occur via Skype, Facetime, Whats App or similar platforms? In addressing that issue, the FTT indicated, without a definitive ruling, that, under present law, whether the phrase in LP( MP) A 1989, s 1(3) ‘in the presence of a witness’ can be met via video link admits more than one arguable view. The tribunal’s indication fell short of a determination, acknowledging that the statutory wording, as it stands, could...
Original news Mr T( PO-28491)/ Mr T( PO-28218)—14 November 2019 Summary The Pensions Ombudsman rejected a grievance alleging a Self- Invested Personal Pension ( SIPP) improperly levied an £800 yearly charge on pension assets valued at £1. The SIPP had pursued a speculative property investment that became distressed, though it did not go insolvent. As the investment remained active, the provider was entitled to refuse closure of the plan, since winding it up could potentially jeopardise any FSCS recovery. Under the plan rules, the provider was also permitted to raise its fees on giving notice. This matter highlights the potentially far-reaching consequences of choosing speculative investments. What were the facts? These two determinations stem from essentially the same circumstances. Mr T was a member of a SIPP. The SIPP provider was entitled to an annual management charge, which could be increased on notice to...
Miller and others v Ministry of Justice [2019] UKSC 60, [2019] All ER ( D) 83 ( Dec) What are the practical implications of this case? The Supreme Court’s ruling is a clear success for Mr Miller and the other Appellants, and appears to have finally drawn to a close the O’ Brien litigation, which began more than a decade ago. The Appellants’ PTWR claims were held to be in time, and they—alongside many judges in comparable circumstances—will now have their pensions assessed by reference to all service both before and after 7 April 2000, the deadline for implementing the Part-time Workers’ Directive into UK law, in line with the Court of Justice’s decision in O’ Brien v Ministry of Justice (note that a separate Supreme Court consent order dated 28 October 2019 dealt with the pre/post 7 April 2000 service point—see further below). The...
Downe v Universities Superannaution Scheme ( USS) and another [2019] EWHC 2403 ( Ch), [2019] All ER ( D) 75 ( Sep) What was the background? Ms Downe is a member of the Universities Superannuation Scheme ( USS). Under the USS rules, a member may receive an early retirement pension on a non-reduced basis if their employment ends for redundancy. For USS purposes, redundancy is made out where a member’s employment is terminated and this is due, wholly or mainly, to the employer’s requirements for employees to carry out work of a particular kind ceasing or reducing, or being expected to cease or reduce. Ms Downe worked for the Society of College, National and University Libraries ( SCONUL) in various roles, notably in accounts and in events management, up to 16 November 2012. She had a strained working relationship with her manager, Mrs R, who joined...
Keymed ( Medical and Industrial Equipment) Ltd v Hillman and another [2019] EWHC 485 ( Ch), [2019] All ER ( D) 68 ( Mar) What are the practical implications of the judgment? In this case, the claimant contended that its ex–chief executive and chief financial officer had colluded to uplift their pension entitlements, to the company’s detriment and contrary to their obligations. The court rejected those assertions as unfounded, concluding there was no kind of breach of duty by either defendant. Accordingly, the claims that they had acted to enrich themselves at the company’s expense failed. Beyond determining that, on the facts of the case, the facts disclosed no dereliction of duty, Marcus Smith J also ruled that, having advanced a case framed around graver wrongdoing, the claimant could not pivot to a case based on simple negligence; further, a trustee of an employee pension...
Scottish Pension Fund Trustees Ltd v Marshall Ross & Munro and others [2018] CSIH 39 What are the practical implications of this case? While appearing to be a ‘pensions’ dispute, the judgment has far wider relevance for the commercial sector. It advances the reconciliation between a strictly technical view of partnership law in Scotland and the practical realities of day-to-day business operations. The court confirmed that, where a business has traded as a single continuing entity over time, there is a presumption under Scottish law—absent in English law—that liabilities transfer to successor partnerships. In this matter, the onus fell on the party with specific knowledge of how each partnership alteration occurred to rebut that presumption. A central policy reason is the protection of creditors. Of broader importance is the dicta of Lord Drummond Young, who reiterates two significant principles in the context of a pension...
Original news O’ Brien v Ministry of Justice [2017] UKSC 46 What was the background to the case? Mr O’ Brien began serving as a part‑time Recorder in 1978 and continued in part‑time judicial office until 2005. Earlier chapters of this protracted dispute confirmed that part‑time judges should have access to a judicial pension, building benefits pro rata to the sittings they undertake against the sittings of a full‑time colleague. The right flows from the Part‑time Workers Directive ( Directive 97/81/ EC on the Framework Agreement for part‑time work), which had to be implemented in domestic law by 7 April 2000. Implementation in England was attempted via the Part‑time Workers ( Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000, SI 2000/1551, yet regulation 17 carved part‑time judges out of their scope. In Ministry of Justice (previously the Department for...
Government sets out plans to reform public financial guidance for consumers In March 2016, the government published a consultation paper outlining a proposal to replace MAS, TPAS and Pension Wise with a fresh delivery model. It is inviting views on how the services should be established and assessed, and on creating effective links between the two new guidance bodies and the broader sector, so that consumers can move seamlessly between guidance and advice providers. Views are requested on service design, assessment, and building links with the wider sector. The consultation closes on 8 June 2016. What is the background to this? The government states that it wants consumers to have access to high-quality, impartial, levy-funded, free-to-client financial guidance (public financial guidance). In October 2015 it launched two reviews—the Financial Advice Market Review ( FAMR—a joint review with the Financial Conduct Authority) and the Public...
Practical implications This decision explored how far a purchaser of a company can rely on an indemnity in a share sale agreement to recover from the seller for losses stemming from an employee’s negligent acts occurring both before and after the business transferred. The indemnity clause stated the seller would hold the buyer harmless for loss ‘directly or indirectly’ arising from services the company (or its agents) supplied before the transfer date, as specified in the agreement. Such wording is a common feature of share sale indemnities. On a straightforward reading, it implies that any loss linked to conduct after completion falls to the buyer, with no route to reimbursement from the seller. The core dispute was how liability should be apportioned for losses spanning pre- and post-transfer where pre-transfer negligence was left uncorrected following completion. This required analysis of two principal...
Popular documents
When evaluating a general damages claim, the practitioner ought initially to refer to the Judicial College Guidelines (JCG)...
This Practice Note This Practice Note reviews mechanisms used in settling litigation. A Tomlin order consists of a consent order paired with a schedule. It operates to stay proceedings on terms that have been agreed. The provisions contained in the schedule may remain confidential. This Practice Note describes the scope of confidentiality attaching to the schedule and sets out how it differs from a standard consent order. Sample wording for a Tomlin order is included, alongside links to precedents, as well as guidance on court approval. It also addresses varying, setting aside and enforcing a Tomlin order, including the considerations the court will take into account when handling applications for each. Further guidance is provided on interpreting and applying the relevant provisions of the CPR; however, some courts and divisions impose very specific requirements for both drafting and approval, and for approaching the schedule and confidentiality issues. Accordingly, you must consider the particular rules and court guide provisions in the forum where your claim is proceeding when drawing up the Tomlin order...
Date [ date ] Parties [ name of Landlord ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Landlord) [ name of Tenant ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Tenant) [ [ name of Guarantor ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Guarantor) ] [ [ name of Mortgagee ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Mortgagee) ] Definitions Within this Deed, the terms below shall be interpreted as follows: [ Annual Rent • the annual sum reserved under the Lease; ] [ Insurance Rent • the Tenant’s share of the Landlord’s costs of insuring the Property (as set out in the Lease); ] Lease • the lease of the Property dated [ date ], entered into between (1) [ the Landlord OR [ name ...
I, [ name ], of [ address ], solemnly and sincerely state that: [ Matters to be verified, set out in numbered paragraphs ] I make this solemn statement in good conscience, believing it to be true, and pursuant to the provisions of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835. DECLARED at [ details ] this [ day ] day of [ month and year ] Before me ................................................................................ [ signature of the person before whom the declaration is made ] A [ commissioner for oaths OR [ solicitor OR [ insert other qualification ] ] authorised to administer oaths ]...
Discover more from LexisNexis
