- Published on
Legal Term - Ad Valorem
Ad valorem is a Latin term that means "to value". In accordance with or relative to the worth or significance of something. An ad valorem tax, such as stamp duty land tax or value-added tax, is levied based on the worth of the goods or property being taxed.
Tax is imposed on the value of the property or transaction that is subject to taxation. An ad valorem duty is imposed based on the worth of the commodities involved, rather than their quantity.
Ad valorem is a Latin term that means "to value". In accordance with or relative to the worth or significance of something. An ad valorem tax, such as stamp duty land tax or value-added tax, is levied based on the worth of the goods or property being taxed.
Tax is imposed on the value of the property or transaction that is subject to taxation. An ad valorem duty is imposed based on the worth of the commodities involved, rather than their quantity.
- Published on
Legal Terms - Advance Decision
A legally binding determination, commonly referred to as a living will, governed by the Mental Capacity Act 2005, in which an individual's wishes and preferences are formally acknowledged and upheld.
A mentally competent adult designates a specific medical procedure (such as a blood transfusion) that should not be performed if they become incapacitated. Typically, a written decision is not necessary unless it pertains to life-saving care, in which case it must be written and witnessed by a third party. For the directive to have an impact, it must be legally binding. This means that the patient should not have revoked it or taken any actions that contradict the decision, as demonstrated in the case of HE v A Hospital NHS Trust [2003] EWHC 1017 (Fam), [2003] FLR 408. It must also be relevant to the specific treatment being discussed.
According to section 25(4) of the 2005 Act, there is an extra condition that must be met for the advance decision to be valid. This condition states that the advance decision will not be applicable if there are reasonable grounds to believe that there are unforeseen circumstances that the patient did not anticipate when making the decision, and if these circumstances would have influenced the patient's decision had they been anticipated.
For instance, the patient's advance decision could be contested if, at the time of making the decision, he was unaware of all the current therapeutic alternatives for the specific ailment that has emerged. Specifically, the emphasis has been on contemporary advancements in pain management. The enforceability of the advance decision often hinges on the level of precision with which it was formulated (X Primary Care Trust v XB [2012] EWHC 1390 (Fam.)).
A healthcare practitioner who administers therapy in violation of a legally binding and relevant advance directive may be engaging in a potentially unlawful or criminal act.
A legally binding determination, commonly referred to as a living will, governed by the Mental Capacity Act 2005, in which an individual's wishes and preferences are formally acknowledged and upheld.
A mentally competent adult designates a specific medical procedure (such as a blood transfusion) that should not be performed if they become incapacitated. Typically, a written decision is not necessary unless it pertains to life-saving care, in which case it must be written and witnessed by a third party. For the directive to have an impact, it must be legally binding. This means that the patient should not have revoked it or taken any actions that contradict the decision, as demonstrated in the case of HE v A Hospital NHS Trust [2003] EWHC 1017 (Fam), [2003] FLR 408. It must also be relevant to the specific treatment being discussed.
According to section 25(4) of the 2005 Act, there is an extra condition that must be met for the advance decision to be valid. This condition states that the advance decision will not be applicable if there are reasonable grounds to believe that there are unforeseen circumstances that the patient did not anticipate when making the decision, and if these circumstances would have influenced the patient's decision had they been anticipated.
For instance, the patient's advance decision could be contested if, at the time of making the decision, he was unaware of all the current therapeutic alternatives for the specific ailment that has emerged. Specifically, the emphasis has been on contemporary advancements in pain management. The enforceability of the advance decision often hinges on the level of precision with which it was formulated (X Primary Care Trust v XB [2012] EWHC 1390 (Fam.)).
A healthcare practitioner who administers therapy in violation of a legally binding and relevant advance directive may be engaging in a potentially unlawful or criminal act.
- Published on
Legal Terms - Advance indication of a sentence
When appearing before the Crown Court, the defendant has the option to seek the judge to provide a sentence indication.
If the defendant pleads guilty instead of proceeding with a trial, it is probable that the case will be resolved in their favor. The hearing typically occurs in a public courtroom and is typically requested during the plea and trial preparation hearing. The judge has absolute autonomy in deciding whether or not to provide an indication and is not required to provide an explanation if they choose not to do so. The judge is obligated to follow any hint provided. If the defendant chooses not to enter a plea of guilty, the indication becomes ineffective. Instructions on the process can be found in the case of R v Goodyear [2005] EWCA Crim 888, [2005] 3 All ER 117.
When appearing before the Crown Court, the defendant has the option to seek the judge to provide a sentence indication.
If the defendant pleads guilty instead of proceeding with a trial, it is probable that the case will be resolved in their favor. The hearing typically occurs in a public courtroom and is typically requested during the plea and trial preparation hearing. The judge has absolute autonomy in deciding whether or not to provide an indication and is not required to provide an explanation if they choose not to do so. The judge is obligated to follow any hint provided. If the defendant chooses not to enter a plea of guilty, the indication becomes ineffective. Instructions on the process can be found in the case of R v Goodyear [2005] EWCA Crim 888, [2005] 3 All ER 117.
- Published on
Legal Terms - Advancement
Advancement refers to the authority inside a trust to allocate funds for the benefit of a minor or a person who may potentially inherit the property through a settlement. The phrase is an abbreviated version of
Advancement refers to the progress or development in the world and is associated with delivering a one-time payment from a trust fund for a specific purpose that is of a lasting nature. Examples of such purposes include payments for marriage, purchasing a property for the beneficiary, or helping the beneficiary establish themselves in a trade or profession. Prior to 1925, it was necessary to explicitly include a power of advancement in any settlement. However, a statutory power now exists under section 32 of the Trustee Act 1925, unless there is an intention to the contrary. An individual is not allowed to obtain more than half of what they are entitled to as an advancement. 2. In specific situations, there is a presumption that if someone voluntarily transfers property to another person or buys property in someone else's name, it is intended for the benefit of that other person. This means that the property will be held for the benefit of the recipient and not for the person who provided or purchased it. The presumption of progress occurs when a father or another individual acting as a parent (*in loco parentis) buys property for, or voluntarily transfers property to, a kid. The presumption does not automatically apply in the case of a mother. Prior to 1882, it was not legally permissible for a woman who was married to own any property.
Nevertheless, the current practice of automatically excluding her from the presumption is illogical (especially considering that a mother now has a legal obligation to support her children), even if she will often be seen to be "in the position of a parent" in many situations. The legal concept of presumption of advancement is recognized when a husband willingly transfers or purchases property for his wife (but not the other way around), and sometimes for his mistress. However, there is uncertainty regarding the strength and validity of this presumption, as questioned in the case of Pettitt v Pettitt [1970] AC 777 (HL). If there is a presumption of advancement, it can be disproven by providing proof that advancement was not intended. This evidence may be considered parol evidence.
Section 199 of the Equality Act 2010 aims to eliminate the assumption of advancement based on gender equality. However, as of 2017, this provision has not yet been implemented.
Advancement refers to the authority inside a trust to allocate funds for the benefit of a minor or a person who may potentially inherit the property through a settlement. The phrase is an abbreviated version of
Advancement refers to the progress or development in the world and is associated with delivering a one-time payment from a trust fund for a specific purpose that is of a lasting nature. Examples of such purposes include payments for marriage, purchasing a property for the beneficiary, or helping the beneficiary establish themselves in a trade or profession. Prior to 1925, it was necessary to explicitly include a power of advancement in any settlement. However, a statutory power now exists under section 32 of the Trustee Act 1925, unless there is an intention to the contrary. An individual is not allowed to obtain more than half of what they are entitled to as an advancement. 2. In specific situations, there is a presumption that if someone voluntarily transfers property to another person or buys property in someone else's name, it is intended for the benefit of that other person. This means that the property will be held for the benefit of the recipient and not for the person who provided or purchased it. The presumption of progress occurs when a father or another individual acting as a parent (*in loco parentis) buys property for, or voluntarily transfers property to, a kid. The presumption does not automatically apply in the case of a mother. Prior to 1882, it was not legally permissible for a woman who was married to own any property.
Nevertheless, the current practice of automatically excluding her from the presumption is illogical (especially considering that a mother now has a legal obligation to support her children), even if she will often be seen to be "in the position of a parent" in many situations. The legal concept of presumption of advancement is recognized when a husband willingly transfers or purchases property for his wife (but not the other way around), and sometimes for his mistress. However, there is uncertainty regarding the strength and validity of this presumption, as questioned in the case of Pettitt v Pettitt [1970] AC 777 (HL). If there is a presumption of advancement, it can be disproven by providing proof that advancement was not intended. This evidence may be considered parol evidence.
Section 199 of the Equality Act 2010 aims to eliminate the assumption of advancement based on gender equality. However, as of 2017, this provision has not yet been implemented.
- Published on
Legal Terms - Adverse Inference
Adverse inference refers to a conclusion or judgment that is unfavorable or negative.
One can make an inference that goes against a defendant's favor in a criminal case according to sections 34-37 of the Criminal Code.
The Justice and Public Order Act of 1994. The legislation stipulates that the court has the authority to make logical deductions from the defendant's omission of facts during questioning or when charged, their lack of response during the trial, their failure to explain the presence of objects, substances, or marks upon arrest, and their failure or refusal to provide an explanation for their presence at a specific location when apprehended. The European Court of Human Rights has determined that drawing negative conclusions from certain evidence is not automatically a violation of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 6 safeguards the right to a fair trial. This ruling was made in the case of John Murray v United Kingdom (1996) 22 EHHR 29.
Adverse inference refers to a conclusion or judgment that is unfavorable or negative.
One can make an inference that goes against a defendant's favor in a criminal case according to sections 34-37 of the Criminal Code.
The Justice and Public Order Act of 1994. The legislation stipulates that the court has the authority to make logical deductions from the defendant's omission of facts during questioning or when charged, their lack of response during the trial, their failure to explain the presence of objects, substances, or marks upon arrest, and their failure or refusal to provide an explanation for their presence at a specific location when apprehended. The European Court of Human Rights has determined that drawing negative conclusions from certain evidence is not automatically a violation of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 6 safeguards the right to a fair trial. This ruling was made in the case of John Murray v United Kingdom (1996) 22 EHHR 29.
- Published on
Legal Terms - Adverse Occupation
Adverse occupatin refers to the act of someone wrongfully occupying a property without the permission of the owner or legitimate occupant.Trespassing is typically not considered a criminal offense. However, if the premises being trespassed upon are residential and currently occupied, the trespasser (regardless of whether force was used to enter) can be charged with an offense under the Criminal Law Act 1977 if they refuse to leave when requested by the displaced residential occupant or a protected intending occupant (or by someone acting on their behalf). A protected intending occupant refers to an individual who has certain legal rights to occupy a property. This includes a purchaser, someone who has been granted access by the local authority, Housing Corporation, or a housing association and can provide written proof of their claim to the premises. It also includes someone who holds a lease, tenancy, or license that has at least two years remaining. According to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, an individual has the ability to acquire an interim possession order. This type of order is distinct from a typical possession order due to its expedited nature, the possibility of being heard without the presence of individuals at the property, and the involvement of law enforcement in its implementation.
Typically, it is considered a summary offense for an unfamiliar person or the property owner to use physical force to enter a building when it is known that someone within is against such entry. Nevertheless, if a residential occupier who has been displaced or a protected intending occupier who has requested the person to vacate the premises, they have the right to seek assistance from the police. A police constable has the authority to apprehend any individual who refuses to vacate domestic premises due to the commission of a summary offense known as adverse occupancy. In addition, it is not considered a violation if a police officer, a person who has been forced to leave their residence, or someone who is legally protected and intends to occupy a property (or their representatives) employ force to gain admission.
Adverse occupatin refers to the act of someone wrongfully occupying a property without the permission of the owner or legitimate occupant.Trespassing is typically not considered a criminal offense. However, if the premises being trespassed upon are residential and currently occupied, the trespasser (regardless of whether force was used to enter) can be charged with an offense under the Criminal Law Act 1977 if they refuse to leave when requested by the displaced residential occupant or a protected intending occupant (or by someone acting on their behalf). A protected intending occupant refers to an individual who has certain legal rights to occupy a property. This includes a purchaser, someone who has been granted access by the local authority, Housing Corporation, or a housing association and can provide written proof of their claim to the premises. It also includes someone who holds a lease, tenancy, or license that has at least two years remaining. According to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, an individual has the ability to acquire an interim possession order. This type of order is distinct from a typical possession order due to its expedited nature, the possibility of being heard without the presence of individuals at the property, and the involvement of law enforcement in its implementation.
Typically, it is considered a summary offense for an unfamiliar person or the property owner to use physical force to enter a building when it is known that someone within is against such entry. Nevertheless, if a residential occupier who has been displaced or a protected intending occupier who has requested the person to vacate the premises, they have the right to seek assistance from the police. A police constable has the authority to apprehend any individual who refuses to vacate domestic premises due to the commission of a summary offense known as adverse occupancy. In addition, it is not considered a violation if a police officer, a person who has been forced to leave their residence, or someone who is legally protected and intends to occupy a property (or their representatives) employ force to gain admission.
- Published on
Legal Terms - Adverse Possession
Squatting refers to the act of occupying land that is legally owned by someone else, with the purpose of taking possession of it.
The primary precedent on adverse possession is the Pye v Graham [2002] UKHL 30, [2003] 1 AC 419 case. The aforementioned case established that in order to acquire adverse possession of land, the adverse possessor (often referred to as a "squatter") must physically dispossess the legal owner by exercising exclusive control over the land with the goal of possessing it to the exclusion of all others, without the agreement of the legal owner.
The impact of adverse possession is contingent upon whether the land is registered or unregistered, as well as the specific date when the adverse possession occurred. When land is not registered, the Limitation Act 1980 states that adverse possession for 12 years or longer usually results in the elimination of the legal ownership of the land by the original owner. The squatter acquires legal ownership of the land. If the limitation period of 12 years for registered land has expired before 13 October 2003, the owner of the land will be legally obligated to keep it in trust for the person who has been in adverse possession for 12 years, according to section 75 of the Land Registration Act 1925. The squatter has the right to request the Land Registry to transfer the title into his name. If the limitation period of 12 years has not elapsed before 13 October 2003, the Land Registration Act 2002 is applicable. Following a period of 10 years of occupying the land without permission, the squatter has the option to request to be officially recognized as the owner of the property. The Land Registrar will send correspondence to the registered proprietor and other parties with an interest in the land, such as mortgagees, to notify them of the application. The individuals who have been notified have a total of 65 working days to respond and express their objections to the application. If there are no objections, the squatter will be officially recognized as the owner instead of the original paper owner. If a formal objection is made, the owner of the property has an additional two years to legally remove the unauthorized occupant. If no objection is received, the owner can proceed with another application to officially become the registered owner. In rare instances, the squatter may be legally recognized as the rightful owner, even if the current owner objects. This typically occurs when the actual boundary between two properties has remained unchanged for over a decade, despite the official documentation indicating a different boundary.
An anyone who knowingly enters a residential building without permission, with the intention of living there, is committing a criminal offense according to section 144 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. The offense is nevertheless committed even if the squatter accessed the property unlawfully before the Act was implemented. In the case of Best v Chief Land Registrar [2015] EWCA Civ 17, [2016] QB 23, the Court of Appeal determined that this rule does not prohibit a squatter from asserting a claim of adverse occupation.
Squatting refers to the act of occupying land that is legally owned by someone else, with the purpose of taking possession of it.
The primary precedent on adverse possession is the Pye v Graham [2002] UKHL 30, [2003] 1 AC 419 case. The aforementioned case established that in order to acquire adverse possession of land, the adverse possessor (often referred to as a "squatter") must physically dispossess the legal owner by exercising exclusive control over the land with the goal of possessing it to the exclusion of all others, without the agreement of the legal owner.
The impact of adverse possession is contingent upon whether the land is registered or unregistered, as well as the specific date when the adverse possession occurred. When land is not registered, the Limitation Act 1980 states that adverse possession for 12 years or longer usually results in the elimination of the legal ownership of the land by the original owner. The squatter acquires legal ownership of the land. If the limitation period of 12 years for registered land has expired before 13 October 2003, the owner of the land will be legally obligated to keep it in trust for the person who has been in adverse possession for 12 years, according to section 75 of the Land Registration Act 1925. The squatter has the right to request the Land Registry to transfer the title into his name. If the limitation period of 12 years has not elapsed before 13 October 2003, the Land Registration Act 2002 is applicable. Following a period of 10 years of occupying the land without permission, the squatter has the option to request to be officially recognized as the owner of the property. The Land Registrar will send correspondence to the registered proprietor and other parties with an interest in the land, such as mortgagees, to notify them of the application. The individuals who have been notified have a total of 65 working days to respond and express their objections to the application. If there are no objections, the squatter will be officially recognized as the owner instead of the original paper owner. If a formal objection is made, the owner of the property has an additional two years to legally remove the unauthorized occupant. If no objection is received, the owner can proceed with another application to officially become the registered owner. In rare instances, the squatter may be legally recognized as the rightful owner, even if the current owner objects. This typically occurs when the actual boundary between two properties has remained unchanged for over a decade, despite the official documentation indicating a different boundary.
An anyone who knowingly enters a residential building without permission, with the intention of living there, is committing a criminal offense according to section 144 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. The offense is nevertheless committed even if the squatter accessed the property unlawfully before the Act was implemented. In the case of Best v Chief Land Registrar [2015] EWCA Civ 17, [2016] QB 23, the Court of Appeal determined that this rule does not prohibit a squatter from asserting a claim of adverse occupation.
- Published on
Legal Terms - Admonition
An admonition is a formal rebuke given by a judge to a defendant who has been released from further prosecution for a crime.
An admonition is a formal rebuke given by a judge to a defendant who has been released from further prosecution for a crime.
- Published on
Legal Terms - Admission
An admission is a statement made by a party involved in a legal case or dispute during civil proceedings.
by an authorized agent who is opposed to the party's position. Admissions can be either informal, such as through a document or word of mouth, or official, such as through a statement of case or in response to a request for additional information.
2. In the context of legal proceedings, a confession is a declaration made by the defendant in which they acknowledge their guilt or the truth of a certain fact. Admissions might be either casual or official. A non-formal admission is referred to as a *confession. In order for an admission to be considered formal, it must adhere to the requirements outlined in section 10 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967. This admission can be made either before or during the hearing. However, if it is not made in court, it must be in written form and must be signed by the defendant or their legal representative. A formal admission can be made regarding any fact that can be testified orally and serves as indisputable evidence of the confessed fact in all criminal procedures related to the matter. However, it can be retracted at any point with the court's approval. When a charge is read out in court and the defendant pleads guilty, it is considered a formal admission.
An admission is a statement made by a party involved in a legal case or dispute during civil proceedings.
by an authorized agent who is opposed to the party's position. Admissions can be either informal, such as through a document or word of mouth, or official, such as through a statement of case or in response to a request for additional information.
2. In the context of legal proceedings, a confession is a declaration made by the defendant in which they acknowledge their guilt or the truth of a certain fact. Admissions might be either casual or official. A non-formal admission is referred to as a *confession. In order for an admission to be considered formal, it must adhere to the requirements outlined in section 10 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967. This admission can be made either before or during the hearing. However, if it is not made in court, it must be in written form and must be signed by the defendant or their legal representative. A formal admission can be made regarding any fact that can be testified orally and serves as indisputable evidence of the confessed fact in all criminal procedures related to the matter. However, it can be retracted at any point with the court's approval. When a charge is read out in court and the defendant pleads guilty, it is considered a formal admission.
- Published on
Legal Terms - Admissibility of records
Under the Civil Evidence Act 1995, papers that contain information (records) can be presented as evidence in civil proceedings to support the facts indicated in them. Prior to the enactment of the 1995 Act, the admissibility of such papers and records was limited to cases where they fell under an exception to the rules that prohibited the use of hearsay evidence. The regulations regarding hearsay in connection to business papers in criminal prosecutions can now be found in section 117 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. According to this provision, these records can be used as evidence if they meet certain criteria. Firstly, if the information contained in the records could have been presented orally as evidence. Secondly, if the records were created or received by someone who was acting in a professional capacity or as a holder of an official position, whether paid or unpaid. Lastly, if the person who provided the information in the records had personal knowledge of the matters discussed, or it can be reasonably assumed that they did.
Under the Civil Evidence Act 1995, papers that contain information (records) can be presented as evidence in civil proceedings to support the facts indicated in them. Prior to the enactment of the 1995 Act, the admissibility of such papers and records was limited to cases where they fell under an exception to the rules that prohibited the use of hearsay evidence. The regulations regarding hearsay in connection to business papers in criminal prosecutions can now be found in section 117 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. According to this provision, these records can be used as evidence if they meet certain criteria. Firstly, if the information contained in the records could have been presented orally as evidence. Secondly, if the records were created or received by someone who was acting in a professional capacity or as a holder of an official position, whether paid or unpaid. Lastly, if the person who provided the information in the records had personal knowledge of the matters discussed, or it can be reasonably assumed that they did.