Litigants will welcome clarification of the burden of proof to be satisfied when applying for a freezing injunction preventing the other side disposing of, or dealing with assets to avoid the financial consequences of losing the case. The applicant must either show a good arguable case that the other side has assets, or that there are grounds for believing they have (or are likely to have) such assets.
Employers should take care what they say to employees about their rights leading up to possible redundancies, or risk their statements being treated as contractual promises which they must then deliver to those employees.
Parties whose approval must be obtained under an agreement should ensure the agreement expressly gives them time to decide whether to give approval, and that the time given is sufficient, or risk approval being deemed given after a reasonable time, a recent ruling makes clear.
Prospective buyers or tenants of land enjoying a right of way should ensure the wording in the right of way will give them the necessary rights of way if they later acquire or lease additional land - particularly where any of the land was acquired by adverse possession.
Employers taking on employees under TUPE rules could dismiss them if their existing terms of employment require them to work in one location, but the new employer requires them to work from another location where the local terms of employment are quite different, but the employees refuse to agree to those terms
An employer wishing to monitor an employee's private communications should, in assessing whether monitoring is to achieve a legitimate aim and is sufficiently limited and proportionate, ensure the employee is told of the possibility that their online activities may be monitored.
Employers will welcome clarification of the multiple factors to take into account when deciding when a sleep-in employee is entitled to the living or national minimum wage for the time they are asleep/not working.
Spouses setting up a trust should ensure they take advice on whether the trust assets could be taken into account when a court considers a financial settlement on divorce - because the trust is a sham, or for any other reason – following a recent ruling.
Spouses should consider whether assets held by companies, or under other company structures, could be taken into account when a court is considering a financial settlement on divorce, because the assets are held on a resulting trust for one spouse, or pursuant to a 'nuptial settlement'.