- Published on
Legal Terms - freedom of testation
disposition An individual's entitlement to dictate the allocation of their estate in their will as they see fit. The principle is constrained by the court's authority to annul a will executed by an individual deemed mentally incapacitated (refer to testamentary capacity) and to allocate *reasonable financial provision from an estate to specific relatives and dependants of the deceased in accordance with the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. This is a fundamental foundation of English law; yet, it does not apply in numerous other jurisdictions, where compelled heirship regulations may be enforced.
disposition An individual's entitlement to dictate the allocation of their estate in their will as they see fit. The principle is constrained by the court's authority to annul a will executed by an individual deemed mentally incapacitated (refer to testamentary capacity) and to allocate *reasonable financial provision from an estate to specific relatives and dependants of the deceased in accordance with the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. This is a fundamental foundation of English law; yet, it does not apply in numerous other jurisdictions, where compelled heirship regulations may be enforced.
- Published on
Legal Terms - liberty of thought, conscience, and religion
A right delineated in Article 9 of the *European Convention on Human Rights and the *Human Rights Act 1998. Freedom of thought is an unequivocal right, whereas the ability to express one's beliefs or religion is a conditional right. The right to proselytize is safeguarded by the Convention (Kokkinakis v Greece (App number 14307/88) [1993] ECHR 20). In Eweida and Others v the United Kingdom (App no 48420/10) ECHR 15 January 2013, the European Court of Human Rights evaluated whether UK law sufficiently safeguarded the applicant's right to express her religion by wearing a Christian cross on a chain around her neck. The Court concluded that her suspension from British Airways was disproportionate, asserting that the availability of resignation does not inherently undermine a claim of religious discrimination in the workplace.
A right delineated in Article 9 of the *European Convention on Human Rights and the *Human Rights Act 1998. Freedom of thought is an unequivocal right, whereas the ability to express one's beliefs or religion is a conditional right. The right to proselytize is safeguarded by the Convention (Kokkinakis v Greece (App number 14307/88) [1993] ECHR 20). In Eweida and Others v the United Kingdom (App no 48420/10) ECHR 15 January 2013, the European Court of Human Rights evaluated whether UK law sufficiently safeguarded the applicant's right to express her religion by wearing a Christian cross on a chain around her neck. The Court concluded that her suspension from British Airways was disproportionate, asserting that the availability of resignation does not inherently undermine a claim of religious discrimination in the workplace.
- Published on
Legal Terms - freedom of expression
A right delineated in Article 10 of the *European Convention on Human Rights and the *Human Rights Act 1998. In the pivotal case Handyside v UK (1976) 1 EHRR 737, the European Court of Human Rights asserted that: “Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society, one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the development of every individual…”It applies not only to 'information' or 'ideas' that are positively received or deemed inoffensive or neutral, but also to those that offend, shock, or disturb. Such is the requirement of pluralism, tolerance, and broadmindedness, which are essential for a 'democratic society.' Convention jurisprudence assigns varying significance to distinct forms of expression. Political speech, being of paramount significance, is likely to receive far higher protection than commercial speech, which is of lesser importance. Freedom of expression is a conditional right.
A right delineated in Article 10 of the *European Convention on Human Rights and the *Human Rights Act 1998. In the pivotal case Handyside v UK (1976) 1 EHRR 737, the European Court of Human Rights asserted that: “Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society, one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the development of every individual…”It applies not only to 'information' or 'ideas' that are positively received or deemed inoffensive or neutral, but also to those that offend, shock, or disturb. Such is the requirement of pluralism, tolerance, and broadmindedness, which are essential for a 'democratic society.' Convention jurisprudence assigns varying significance to distinct forms of expression. Political speech, being of paramount significance, is likely to receive far higher protection than commercial speech, which is of lesser importance. Freedom of expression is a conditional right.
- Published on
Legal Terms – Freedom from Encumbrances
The liberation of property from the encumbrances imposed by parties other than the proprietor. In contracts for the sale of goods, unless the seller explicitly states that he is transferring only the title he or a third party possesses, there exists an implied warranty that the goods are free from any undisclosed or unknown charges or encumbrances to the buyer prior to the formation of the contract.
The liberation of property from the encumbrances imposed by parties other than the proprietor. In contracts for the sale of goods, unless the seller explicitly states that he is transferring only the title he or a third party possesses, there exists an implied warranty that the goods are free from any undisclosed or unknown charges or encumbrances to the buyer prior to the formation of the contract.
- Published on
Legal Terms – Freedom of Association
Article 11 of the *European Convention on Human Rights and the *Human Rights Act 1998 safeguard the freedom of peaceful assembly and association, encompassing the right to participate in peaceful protests and demonstrations, as well as to establish and join trade unions and analogous organizations (Wilson v UK [2002] 1 IRLR 568 (ECHR)). It is a conditional right. The state is obligated to safeguard demonstrators from individuals intent on obstructing their assembly or assaulting them (Plattform Ärzte für das Leben v Austria (1988) 13 EHRR 204).
Article 11 of the *European Convention on Human Rights and the *Human Rights Act 1998 safeguard the freedom of peaceful assembly and association, encompassing the right to participate in peaceful protests and demonstrations, as well as to establish and join trade unions and analogous organizations (Wilson v UK [2002] 1 IRLR 568 (ECHR)). It is a conditional right. The state is obligated to safeguard demonstrators from individuals intent on obstructing their assembly or assaulting them (Plattform Ärzte für das Leben v Austria (1988) 13 EHRR 204).
- Published on
Legal Terms – Freeboard
According to the Merchant Shipping (Safety and Load Line Conventions) Act 1932, the vertical distance measured at midship from the upper edge of the deck line to the upper edge of the load line mark.
According to the Merchant Shipping (Safety and Load Line Conventions) Act 1932, the vertical distance measured at midship from the upper edge of the deck line to the upper edge of the load line mark.
- Published on
Legal Terms - Fraudulent Trading
Fraudulent business practices include taking advance payment for items without fulfilling them or repaying the payment. This action is a criminal offense (Companies Act 2006 § 993) and can result in civil liability under section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986. The court may force people responsible to contribute to the company's assets during a winding-up. Cases: Re Patrick & Lyon Ltd [1933] Ch 786 and Re Maidstone Building Provisions Ltd [1971] 1 WLR 1085.
Fraudulent business practices include taking advance payment for items without fulfilling them or repaying the payment. This action is a criminal offense (Companies Act 2006 § 993) and can result in civil liability under section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986. The court may force people responsible to contribute to the company's assets during a winding-up. Cases: Re Patrick & Lyon Ltd [1933] Ch 786 and Re Maidstone Building Provisions Ltd [1971] 1 WLR 1085.
- Published on
Legal Terms- fraudulent conveyance
A land transfer that is made with the intention of defrauding a subsequent purchaser and without valuable consideration. An illustration of fraudulent conveyance is when A, who has entered into a contract to sell the land to B, transfers the property to his associate C in order to circumvent the contract with B. B is entitled to have the conveyance to C set aside by the court under the Law of Property Act 1925.
A land transfer that is made with the intention of defrauding a subsequent purchaser and without valuable consideration. An illustration of fraudulent conveyance is when A, who has entered into a contract to sell the land to B, transfers the property to his associate C in order to circumvent the contract with B. B is entitled to have the conveyance to C set aside by the court under the Law of Property Act 1925.
- Published on
Legal Terms - fraudulent activity against the minority
An improper exercise of voting power by the majority of members of a company in which votes are not cast for the benefit of the company as a whole, as defined by common law. In general, the common law rules that were applicable in such cases have been superseded by sections 260–64 of the Companies Act 2006. Nevertheless, a common law derivative claim that is based on the concept of fraud on the minority continues to be applicable in cases where the Companies Act does not apply, such as in the case of a limited liability partnership (Harris v Microfusion LLP [2016] EWCA Civ 1212).
An improper exercise of voting power by the majority of members of a company in which votes are not cast for the benefit of the company as a whole, as defined by common law. In general, the common law rules that were applicable in such cases have been superseded by sections 260–64 of the Companies Act 2006. Nevertheless, a common law derivative claim that is based on the concept of fraud on the minority continues to be applicable in cases where the Companies Act does not apply, such as in the case of a limited liability partnership (Harris v Microfusion LLP [2016] EWCA Civ 1212).
- Published on
Legal Terms - forfeiture rule
A common law principle of public policy that, under specific conditions, prohibits an individual who has illegally killed another from obtaining a benefit resulting from the act of killing. The advantages to which the rule may pertain encompass prima facie rights under a will, intestacy regulations, and social security benefits. It also results in the severance of a joint tenancy. The rule likely encompasses all instances of unlawful death or complicity therein, including vehicular offenses and cases of manslaughter due to loss of control or decreased culpability (Amos v Mancini [2020] EWHC 1063 (Ch)). However, it will not be applicable in cases when an individual is deemed not guilty by reason of insanity. According to the Estates of Deceased Persons (Forfeiture Rule and Law of Succession) Act 2011, applicable to deaths occurring on or after 1 February 2012, the intestacy rules and/or any will are enforced as though the forfeiting individual predeceased the victim. The objective is to prevent the disinheritance of the innocent descendants or other beneficiaries of the forfeiting individual, although the specific implications in the context of wills have presented certain challenges (Macmillan Cancer Support v Hayes [2017] EWHC 3110 (Ch)). The Forfeiture Act 1982 grants extensive authority to a court to offer complete or partial relief from forfeiture, and the Court of Appeal delineated the appropriate interpretation of the Act in Dunbar v Plant [1998] Ch 412. A conviction is not required for the application of the rule or for relief from it; but, relief is unavailable if the applicant is "convicted" of murder.
A common law principle of public policy that, under specific conditions, prohibits an individual who has illegally killed another from obtaining a benefit resulting from the act of killing. The advantages to which the rule may pertain encompass prima facie rights under a will, intestacy regulations, and social security benefits. It also results in the severance of a joint tenancy. The rule likely encompasses all instances of unlawful death or complicity therein, including vehicular offenses and cases of manslaughter due to loss of control or decreased culpability (Amos v Mancini [2020] EWHC 1063 (Ch)). However, it will not be applicable in cases when an individual is deemed not guilty by reason of insanity. According to the Estates of Deceased Persons (Forfeiture Rule and Law of Succession) Act 2011, applicable to deaths occurring on or after 1 February 2012, the intestacy rules and/or any will are enforced as though the forfeiting individual predeceased the victim. The objective is to prevent the disinheritance of the innocent descendants or other beneficiaries of the forfeiting individual, although the specific implications in the context of wills have presented certain challenges (Macmillan Cancer Support v Hayes [2017] EWHC 3110 (Ch)). The Forfeiture Act 1982 grants extensive authority to a court to offer complete or partial relief from forfeiture, and the Court of Appeal delineated the appropriate interpretation of the Act in Dunbar v Plant [1998] Ch 412. A conviction is not required for the application of the rule or for relief from it; but, relief is unavailable if the applicant is "convicted" of murder.
