- Published on
Legal Terms - compulsory jurisdiction
The ability of an international tribunal to mandate, and so force, states to bring legal action against one another. According to Article 36(2) of its Statute, the *International Court of Justice's mandatory jurisdiction is contingent upon the nations' voluntary prior declarations. We refer to this as the *optional clause
The ability of an international tribunal to mandate, and so force, states to bring legal action against one another. According to Article 36(2) of its Statute, the *International Court of Justice's mandatory jurisdiction is contingent upon the nations' voluntary prior declarations. We refer to this as the *optional clause
- Published on
Legal Terms – Compulsory Purchase
compulsory purchase
the forcible, legally mandated, and compensation-based seizure of land for public use. While there may be specific acquisition authority granted, public and municipal authorities has broad authority to obtain any land needed for certain purposes, including education. A Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) based on a particular Act of Parliament or an Order under the Transport and Works Act of 1992 are the two most often utilized forms of compulsory purchase authority. The Land Compensation Acts of 1961 and 1973 determine compensation, whereas the Acquisition of Land Act of 1981 governs the requirements for awarding a CPO. The relevant government minister receives a mandatory purchase order and confirms it; before making a decision, the minister looks into public objections. The process often include serving the landowner with a *notice to treat, after which they discuss payment. Any disagreement about compensation is resolved by the *Upper Tribunal's Lands Chamber.
compulsory purchase
the forcible, legally mandated, and compensation-based seizure of land for public use. While there may be specific acquisition authority granted, public and municipal authorities has broad authority to obtain any land needed for certain purposes, including education. A Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) based on a particular Act of Parliament or an Order under the Transport and Works Act of 1992 are the two most often utilized forms of compulsory purchase authority. The Land Compensation Acts of 1961 and 1973 determine compensation, whereas the Acquisition of Land Act of 1981 governs the requirements for awarding a CPO. The relevant government minister receives a mandatory purchase order and confirms it; before making a decision, the minister looks into public objections. The process often include serving the landowner with a *notice to treat, after which they discuss payment. Any disagreement about compensation is resolved by the *Upper Tribunal's Lands Chamber.
- Published on
Legal Terms - compulsory winding-up (compulsory liquidation)
a process wherein a corporation is wound up by the court on the basis of a petition filed under certain conditions specified in the Insolvency Act 1986. This kind of petition is primarily justified by the company's inability to pay its debts or by the court's determination that a *just and equitable winding-up is in the company's best interests (Insolvency Act 1986 § 122). Such a petition may be filed by the Secretary of State, the supervisor of a voluntary arrangement, any director, *contributory, or creditor of the company (Insolvency Act 1986 § 124). Under the direction of the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), a *liquidation committee, and the court, a *liquidator* oversees the winding up.
a process wherein a corporation is wound up by the court on the basis of a petition filed under certain conditions specified in the Insolvency Act 1986. This kind of petition is primarily justified by the company's inability to pay its debts or by the court's determination that a *just and equitable winding-up is in the company's best interests (Insolvency Act 1986 § 122). Such a petition may be filed by the Secretary of State, the supervisor of a voluntary arrangement, any director, *contributory, or creditor of the company (Insolvency Act 1986 § 124). Under the direction of the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), a *liquidation committee, and the court, a *liquidator* oversees the winding up.
- Published on
Legal Terms -computer documents (in the law of evidence)
The Criminal Justice Act of 2003 presently governs the acceptance of such evidence in criminal proceedings. A document generated by a computer may be included as genuine evidence or as hearsay evidence.
The Criminal Justice Act of 2003 presently governs the acceptance of such evidence in criminal proceedings. A document generated by a computer may be included as genuine evidence or as hearsay evidence.
- Published on
Legal Terms - concealment of securities
The dishonestly concealing, damaging, or defacing any important security, will, or document issued from a court or government department with the intent to benefit oneself or cause harm to another is an offense that carries a maximum sentence of seven years in jail. Any documents pertaining to property rights, approving the payment of funds or the delivery of goods, or demonstrating such rights or the fulfillment of any obligation are considered valuable securities.
The dishonestly concealing, damaging, or defacing any important security, will, or document issued from a court or government department with the intent to benefit oneself or cause harm to another is an offense that carries a maximum sentence of seven years in jail. Any documents pertaining to property rights, approving the payment of funds or the delivery of goods, or demonstrating such rights or the fulfillment of any obligation are considered valuable securities.
- Published on
Legal Terms - concert party (consortium)
a deal (which might or might not be enforceable by law) amongst several individuals to purchase company stock in order to amass a substantial portion of the voting stock. A member of a concert party is considered to be interested in both his own shares and those of other consortium members. Under the Companies Act of 2006 and the guidelines overseen by the Panel on Takeovers and Mergers, anyone who develops an interest in 3% or more of the voting shares of a public company is required to notify the company. A corporation might be able to thwart a *takeover with the use of such disclosure; it might also set off regulations about partial offers, which might require the consortium to submit an offer to purchase the remaining shares.
a deal (which might or might not be enforceable by law) amongst several individuals to purchase company stock in order to amass a substantial portion of the voting stock. A member of a concert party is considered to be interested in both his own shares and those of other consortium members. Under the Companies Act of 2006 and the guidelines overseen by the Panel on Takeovers and Mergers, anyone who develops an interest in 3% or more of the voting shares of a public company is required to notify the company. A corporation might be able to thwart a *takeover with the use of such disclosure; it might also set off regulations about partial offers, which might require the consortium to submit an offer to purchase the remaining shares.
- Published on
Land Law - Implied Reservation for Easement
Now, we will examine the process by which easements can be implicitly reserved inside a deed. To reserve an easement means to grant the original landowner ongoing access to the land they are selling, even after it has been sold. There are just two possible occurrences: reservation by need and reservation by shared intention. It is crucial to note that sellers of land who claim an implied reserve of an easement are subject to a higher burden of proof. However, the courts will take into account the concept of 'non derogation from grant'.
Implied Reservation
Now, we will examine the process by which easements can be implicitly reserved inside a deed. To reserve an easement means to grant the original landowner ongoing access to the land they are selling, even after the sale has taken place. There are just two possible occurrences:
reservation by necessity and reservation by common intention.
It is crucial to note that sellers of land who claim an implied reservation of an easement have a greater responsibility to provide evidence, but the courts will also take into account the concept of 'non derogation from grant'.
Manu possesses a pair of residential apartments. Each individual property has its own separate entrance, but, there are certain facilities that are shared across all the flats, such as drainage and chimneys. Manu sells one of the flats to Brandon while retaining residence in the other flat. Manu obstructs the chimney, so preventing Brandon from utilizing it. Is Manu capable of doing this?
These facts bear resemblance to the ones seen in the case of Jones v Pritchard [1908]. The court applied the principle of 'non derogation from grant', which states that a person cannot grant something and subsequently withhold rights that are necessary for the grant to be effective. For example, it would be unjust for someone to sell a house and then prevent the new owner from using the chimney. First, we shall examine the inclusion of a reservation in the deed based on 'necessity'.
Reservation out of necessity
This concept is highly direct and functions similarly to a necessity-based grant discussed previously in this chapter. The easement is considered "necessary" if the land would be completely landlocked without it.
This is common in relation to two categories of rights: rights of support and rights of way. Once again, the courts exhibit a stringent approach when assessing the requirement for a particular piece of property, insisting that it must be entirely inaccessible.
Jameila constructs a new dwelling for herself on her current plot of land and then sells the former dwelling. However, in the process, she fails to provide any means of reaching the public road, and there are no alternative routes to access the new piece of land. In order to reach the roadway, she must transfer ownership of the land she once possessed. The new proprietor is declining to grant permission for this. Is Jameila able to acquire the required easement? It is highly probable that the response is affirmative. Access to the land that was previously owned is essential for its utilization. It is completely surrounded by land and does not have access to any body of water.
Reservation by common intention
An easement can be impliedly reserved into a deed by shared intention, which is the second method. These easements can be categorized as non-essential for land use, although were often intended by the parties for that purpose. Due to various circumstances, often resulting from negligence, the easements were inadvertently omitted from the official deed.
Charles owned a row of four terraced residences. Every property is equipped with a pathway at the back of the gardens that enables all homeowners access to their garbage bins. Charles sold three residences, but he neglected to secure a right of way over the back garden and along the side of the remaining houses when he sold the last one. The path was clearly discernible on the plan and had been utilized by all four houses on the terrace. Does this fit within the scope of a 'common intention' reservation?
The case of Peckham v Ellison [2000] established that although it is more challenging to prove the reservation of an easement, the court determined that the burden of proof had been met and there was a clear intention to reserve the right of way.
Now, we will examine the process by which easements can be implicitly reserved inside a deed. To reserve an easement means to grant the original landowner ongoing access to the land they are selling, even after it has been sold. There are just two possible occurrences: reservation by need and reservation by shared intention. It is crucial to note that sellers of land who claim an implied reserve of an easement are subject to a higher burden of proof. However, the courts will take into account the concept of 'non derogation from grant'.
Implied Reservation
Now, we will examine the process by which easements can be implicitly reserved inside a deed. To reserve an easement means to grant the original landowner ongoing access to the land they are selling, even after the sale has taken place. There are just two possible occurrences:
reservation by necessity and reservation by common intention.
It is crucial to note that sellers of land who claim an implied reservation of an easement have a greater responsibility to provide evidence, but the courts will also take into account the concept of 'non derogation from grant'.
Manu possesses a pair of residential apartments. Each individual property has its own separate entrance, but, there are certain facilities that are shared across all the flats, such as drainage and chimneys. Manu sells one of the flats to Brandon while retaining residence in the other flat. Manu obstructs the chimney, so preventing Brandon from utilizing it. Is Manu capable of doing this?
These facts bear resemblance to the ones seen in the case of Jones v Pritchard [1908]. The court applied the principle of 'non derogation from grant', which states that a person cannot grant something and subsequently withhold rights that are necessary for the grant to be effective. For example, it would be unjust for someone to sell a house and then prevent the new owner from using the chimney. First, we shall examine the inclusion of a reservation in the deed based on 'necessity'.
Reservation out of necessity
This concept is highly direct and functions similarly to a necessity-based grant discussed previously in this chapter. The easement is considered "necessary" if the land would be completely landlocked without it.
This is common in relation to two categories of rights: rights of support and rights of way. Once again, the courts exhibit a stringent approach when assessing the requirement for a particular piece of property, insisting that it must be entirely inaccessible.
Jameila constructs a new dwelling for herself on her current plot of land and then sells the former dwelling. However, in the process, she fails to provide any means of reaching the public road, and there are no alternative routes to access the new piece of land. In order to reach the roadway, she must transfer ownership of the land she once possessed. The new proprietor is declining to grant permission for this. Is Jameila able to acquire the required easement? It is highly probable that the response is affirmative. Access to the land that was previously owned is essential for its utilization. It is completely surrounded by land and does not have access to any body of water.
Reservation by common intention
An easement can be impliedly reserved into a deed by shared intention, which is the second method. These easements can be categorized as non-essential for land use, although were often intended by the parties for that purpose. Due to various circumstances, often resulting from negligence, the easements were inadvertently omitted from the official deed.
Charles owned a row of four terraced residences. Every property is equipped with a pathway at the back of the gardens that enables all homeowners access to their garbage bins. Charles sold three residences, but he neglected to secure a right of way over the back garden and along the side of the remaining houses when he sold the last one. The path was clearly discernible on the plan and had been utilized by all four houses on the terrace. Does this fit within the scope of a 'common intention' reservation?
The case of Peckham v Ellison [2000] established that although it is more challenging to prove the reservation of an easement, the court determined that the burden of proof had been met and there was a clear intention to reserve the right of way.
- Published on
Legal Terms - complaint
The form filed in a magistrates' court to initiate certain criminal cases, or the act of filing such a form to initiate proceedings. 2. A formal criminal complaint.
The form filed in a magistrates' court to initiate certain criminal cases, or the act of filing such a form to initiate proceedings. 2. A formal criminal complaint.
- Published on
Legal Terms – Compensation
monetary payment made to make up for a loss or injury. The court may issue a compensation order compelling the offender to reimburse the person who suffered the loss (with interest, if necessary) if they have committed a criminal offense that resulted in personal injury, loss, or damage, and they have been found guilty of this offense or it was considered when they were sentenced for another offense. Sections 130–34 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 govern the court's authority to order compensation. Compensation orders may be issued by magistrates' courts. The judge must consider the offender's financial situation and refrain from imposing unreasonably high fines or orders that must be paid in lengthy installments. Priority should be given to paying compensation if the offender is unable to pay both the fine and the compensation. If a person dies as a result of an offense other than a motor vehicle accident, compensation may be ordered for burial costs or grief. The same as under the Fatal Accidents Act of 1976 are the potential claimants and the maximum compensation for grief. In the event of a theft Act 1968 offense, an order may only be made regarding injury, loss, or damage (apart from loss incurred by the deceased person's dependents) resulting from a motor vehicle accident if: (1) the property was damaged while it was not under the owner's possession; or (2) the offender was not covered by insurance when using the vehicle and compensation is not due under the terms of the *Motor Insurers' Bureau agreement. If a court decides not to grant compensation, it must explain why. *Criminal harm victims may apply for
reimbursement through the *Criminal Injuries Compensation Plan. When the stolen goods are no longer in existence, a *restitution order—which is similar to a compensation order—may be made in accordance with the Theft Act of 1968. Orders for compensation may be given in lieu of or in addition to other penalties. If the parent or guardian of an offender under the age of 17 cannot be located or it would be unfair to compel him to pay, the court must order him to pay the compensation order on behalf of the offender.
An individual who has been unfairly convicted of a crime may submit an application to the Home Secretary for compensation, which will be given based on the evaluation made by an impartial assessor.
An employer who has fired an employee unfairly may be ordered by an employment tribunal to compensate the fired employee (see UNFAIR DISMISSAL).
The compensation is divided into two parts: a compensatory award that represents the loss the employee experiences as a result of the dismissal, and a basic award that is equal to the statutory *redundancy payment to which a redundant employee would be entitled. The maximum award is £16,320 (or £544 per week up to 20 weeks' pay) (correct as of 6 April 2021). This amount is applicable to dismissals for certain automatically unfair reasons, such as trade union activity. The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act of 2013 establishes a cap on the compensatory award of one year's pay or the statutory maximum, whichever is lower. The definition of a week's pay under the Employment Rights Act of 1996 will be used for the computation, with pension contributions and fringe benefits excluded. As of 6 April 2021, the statutory ceiling for compensation awards is £88,519, and it is subject to annual revision.
If the employer refuses to comply with the tribunal's order to re-employ the employee, more compensation may be granted; this additional compensation might range from 26 to 52 weeks' worth of wages. Regulations created by the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise, and Regulatory Reform provide restrictions on the amount of weekly compensation that can be utilized in these computations, and they are reviewed yearly. The maximum wage amount per week as of April 2021 is £544. When an employee's actions led to his termination, the tribunal may reduce any remuneration by a reasonable amount. In the event that either party disregards an applicable code of practice, compensation may also be modified. The employee has the same obligation to lessen his loss as if they were a plaintiff seeking compensation in court. Consequently,
He won't get paid for his subsequent unpaid unemployment if he unjustly rejects an offer of employment. The employer may transfer the obligation to provide compensation to the trade union if the employee was fired for failing to sign a *closed-shop agreement, as a result of pressure from the union for the employee's termination. In the event that an employment tribunal finds that there has been unlawful discrimination, compensation may also be granted. There is no cap on the total amount of damages awarded in certain situations. This may also contain a portion for emotional distress.
monetary payment made to make up for a loss or injury. The court may issue a compensation order compelling the offender to reimburse the person who suffered the loss (with interest, if necessary) if they have committed a criminal offense that resulted in personal injury, loss, or damage, and they have been found guilty of this offense or it was considered when they were sentenced for another offense. Sections 130–34 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 govern the court's authority to order compensation. Compensation orders may be issued by magistrates' courts. The judge must consider the offender's financial situation and refrain from imposing unreasonably high fines or orders that must be paid in lengthy installments. Priority should be given to paying compensation if the offender is unable to pay both the fine and the compensation. If a person dies as a result of an offense other than a motor vehicle accident, compensation may be ordered for burial costs or grief. The same as under the Fatal Accidents Act of 1976 are the potential claimants and the maximum compensation for grief. In the event of a theft Act 1968 offense, an order may only be made regarding injury, loss, or damage (apart from loss incurred by the deceased person's dependents) resulting from a motor vehicle accident if: (1) the property was damaged while it was not under the owner's possession; or (2) the offender was not covered by insurance when using the vehicle and compensation is not due under the terms of the *Motor Insurers' Bureau agreement. If a court decides not to grant compensation, it must explain why. *Criminal harm victims may apply for
reimbursement through the *Criminal Injuries Compensation Plan. When the stolen goods are no longer in existence, a *restitution order—which is similar to a compensation order—may be made in accordance with the Theft Act of 1968. Orders for compensation may be given in lieu of or in addition to other penalties. If the parent or guardian of an offender under the age of 17 cannot be located or it would be unfair to compel him to pay, the court must order him to pay the compensation order on behalf of the offender.
An individual who has been unfairly convicted of a crime may submit an application to the Home Secretary for compensation, which will be given based on the evaluation made by an impartial assessor.
An employer who has fired an employee unfairly may be ordered by an employment tribunal to compensate the fired employee (see UNFAIR DISMISSAL).
The compensation is divided into two parts: a compensatory award that represents the loss the employee experiences as a result of the dismissal, and a basic award that is equal to the statutory *redundancy payment to which a redundant employee would be entitled. The maximum award is £16,320 (or £544 per week up to 20 weeks' pay) (correct as of 6 April 2021). This amount is applicable to dismissals for certain automatically unfair reasons, such as trade union activity. The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act of 2013 establishes a cap on the compensatory award of one year's pay or the statutory maximum, whichever is lower. The definition of a week's pay under the Employment Rights Act of 1996 will be used for the computation, with pension contributions and fringe benefits excluded. As of 6 April 2021, the statutory ceiling for compensation awards is £88,519, and it is subject to annual revision.
If the employer refuses to comply with the tribunal's order to re-employ the employee, more compensation may be granted; this additional compensation might range from 26 to 52 weeks' worth of wages. Regulations created by the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise, and Regulatory Reform provide restrictions on the amount of weekly compensation that can be utilized in these computations, and they are reviewed yearly. The maximum wage amount per week as of April 2021 is £544. When an employee's actions led to his termination, the tribunal may reduce any remuneration by a reasonable amount. In the event that either party disregards an applicable code of practice, compensation may also be modified. The employee has the same obligation to lessen his loss as if they were a plaintiff seeking compensation in court. Consequently,
He won't get paid for his subsequent unpaid unemployment if he unjustly rejects an offer of employment. The employer may transfer the obligation to provide compensation to the trade union if the employee was fired for failing to sign a *closed-shop agreement, as a result of pressure from the union for the employee's termination. In the event that an employment tribunal finds that there has been unlawful discrimination, compensation may also be granted. There is no cap on the total amount of damages awarded in certain situations. This may also contain a portion for emotional distress.
- Published on
Legal Terms - compensation-culture
a society where a large number of people have come to feel that someone else is always to fault for whatever bad things that happen to them, and that *damages* should be sought as recompense. A common accusation is that the UK has witnessed a rise in this kind of culture in the last few years. This mindset has significant ramifications for the insurance sector, among other things.
a society where a large number of people have come to feel that someone else is always to fault for whatever bad things that happen to them, and that *damages* should be sought as recompense. A common accusation is that the UK has witnessed a rise in this kind of culture in the last few years. This mindset has significant ramifications for the insurance sector, among other things.
