Family Law Week’s Post

📢 Update on the Renters Reform Bill (RRB): iHowz has been lobbying parliament for some time, working alongside Sir Christopher Chope regarding the RRB. However, on the 3rd reading, the situation remains uncertain. Despite efforts, an opposition amendment to immediately abolish Section 21 was defeated. The Bill stipulates Section 21 will be axed 'when the court system improves,' but the specifics are sadly lacking. Key points of the Bill: 1. Abolition of Section 21 Evictions: Ensures tenants' security by preventing landlords from evicting without cause. 2. Decent Home Standard: Sets minimum safety and quality standards for rental properties. 3. Enhanced Tenant Rights: Grants new rights, including pet permissions and protection against discrimination. 4. Review of Court System: Ensures effective management of eviction cases before Section 21 abolishment. 5. Timeline Adjustments: Allows for adequate preparation periods for landlords and tenants. 6. Clarifications on Rights/Obligations: Ensures clarity in tenant rights and landlord obligations. 7. Focus on Housing Standards: Ensures safe and habitable rental accommodation. 8. Balancing Interests: Aims for fairness between landlords and tenants. Overall, the RRB, with its amendments, represents a comprehensive effort to reform the rental sector and address key issues affecting renters across the UK. Stay tuned for updates! 🏠🔑 #rentersreformbill #RRB #ukrentals #uklandlords #rentals #privaterentedsector #prs

😂🤣🤣 Luxembourg has a parliamentary form of government with a constitutional monarchy by inheritance. Under the constitution of 1868, as amended, executive power is exercised by the Grand Duke and the Council of Government (cabinet), which consists of a prime minister and several other ministers. Luxembourg has a unique form of government that combines elements of both parliamentary and constitutional monarchy. The country is a constitutional monarchy, which means that, although the Grand Duke holds the title of head of state, his powers are largely ceremonial and symbolic. The real executive power lies with the government, which is headed by the Prime Minister. Here’s a quick breakdown of how Luxembourg’s government works: 1. Grand Duke: The head of state, who comes from the royal family and ascends to the throne by inheritance. While the Grand Duke has some formal powers, his role is largely symbolic, and he must act in accordance with the constitution and laws. His functions include opening and closing the sessions of the parliament, signing bills into law, and representing Luxembourg internationally. 2. Council of Government (Cabinet): The executive power is primarily vested in the cabinet, which is composed of the Prime Minister and several other ministers. The Prime Minister is the head of government and is responsible for leading the government’s operations and formulating policy. The ministers are in charge of specific portfolios, such as finance, foreign affairs, or education. This group is responsible for the day-to-day management of the country and the implementation of policies. 3. Parliamentary System: Luxembourg’s legislative body, the Chamber of Deputies, is made up of elected representatives who create and pass laws. The government must maintain the confidence of the Chamber of Deputies in order to stay in power, meaning that the Prime Minister and the cabinet are accountable to the parliament. In essence, the Grand Duke’s role is largely ceremonial, while real political power is exercised by the Prime Minister and the cabinet, who must answer to the elected parliament. This structure is similar to other European constitutional monarchies, where the monarchy exists but does not hold governing power. Luxembourg is often viewed as a stable and prosperous democracy with a relatively high standard of living, although it also faces critiques around issues like wealth inequality and the concentration of financial power.

Subclassification of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for the purpose of reservations may be addressed towards solving certain problems, but at what cost? https://lnkd.in/dNFUZVC6

Duel purpose Today, the idea you might kill someone in a duel over a point of honour is an anathema. Yet, for much of the last millennia duelling was very much the done thing – indeed William I introduced the judicial duel into English Law in the 11th century. Dueling’s roots as a way to settle feuds and grievances go back to Germanic tribes of the Middle Ages. These duels, brutal and ritualistic, involved hand-to-hand combat. As this tradition spread through Europe, it evolved into a formalised ritual of chivalry, with codes of conduct and rules designed to ensure that the duels were seen as an honourable pursuit rather than a chaotic brawl. By the medieval period, duelling had become widespread across Europe, eventually making its way to Britain through the influence of continental courts and knights. Thereafter, duelling blended both the knightly tradition of single combat and the aristocratic values of the time. British duelling reached a peak in the 18th and early 19th centuries. One of the most famous British duels was in 1829. The Duke of Wellington, hero of Waterloo and the sitting Prime Minister, duelled with the Earl of Winchilsea over accusations that Wellington’s political reforms would undermine the authority of the Church of England. The duel concluded without injury after both parties symbolically discharged their pistols into the air, signalling that honour had been served without bloodshed. After the duel, Wellington began to recognise the absurdity and danger of duelling, particularly as a method of resolving disputes among public figures. Aware of his influence, Wellington became increasingly critical of the practice, aligning with a broader shift in British society toward viewing duelling as outdated and reckless. By the mid-19th century, societal pressure and legal actions made duelling less acceptable and the practice eventually faded, with Wellington’s stance playing a significant role in that decline and outlawing. Wellington’s opposition to duelling reminds how when people in authority reject dangerous customs, they help change public opinion and contribute to progress, demonstrating that responsible leadership can create lasting change. Equally, the converse is true. In January next year, a new President in the USA will set the tone. What that means for the institutions, customs and practices of America and beyond we wait to see.

The Oliver Twist approach to taxation has never been met with much success, this case confirms the rule https://lnkd.in/edmZxqsX

Very interesting developments in relation to the trading of private company shares outlined in this briefing prepared by my colleagues and I. In particular the more pragmatic approach to market abuse may make the new platform more attractive to certain types of private company, albeit I'll need to be convinced as to the likely take up from private equity/sponsor-owned companies given the consequential impact on typical incentive models. #MandA #privateequity #thoughtleadership #EvershedsSutherland

UK 🌍: In the Mansion House speech delivered on 14 November, Chancellor Rachel Reeves confirmed the UK government’s commitment to legislate to establish PISCES, the Private Intermittent Securities and Capital Exchange System.    In this briefing, we explore what PISCES is, who can trade on PISCES, who will operate PISCES and more… Read the full briefing here: https://lnkd.in/eeQffK7X #Corporate #CapitalMarkets

Having followed the passage of this newish initiative since its inception it will be interesting to see how useful PISCES may be for facilitation of private company employee share incentive arrangements. Lots of companies are talking about it and potentially replacing more complex employee benefit trust based matched bargain structures. Do please get in touch if this is potentially of interest!

Imagine the US Supreme Court as a towering castle nestled high upon a hill. In this castle, Justice Samuel Alito sits as one of its solemn gatekeepers. This year, he's been somewhat of a hermit, claiming he hasn’t ventured on any excursions funded by mysterious benefactors. Yet, like a cloaked minstrel belly-dancing at a royal feast, Alito's recent financial disclosure has everyone peeping through the keyholes, and what a spectacle they've found. For one, Alito seems to have a taste for the finer things—a secret admirer of symphonies residing in a German socialite’s heart, serenaded with concert tickets like a knight in a forbidden courtship. How charmingly medieval! However, beyond the melodious trysts lies something more mundane yet questionable: an unreported loan lurking in the shadows for years! It's almost as if the castle walls have been whispering secrets all along. Loan unknown. Loan unknown, they chant in evenings thick with fog. Is it negligence, or merely forgetfulness? Or perhaps the complexity of one's life scales surprised even a man of such high standing? But let's draw our gaze away from the murky dungeons to pontificate: - **Transparency and Trust:** In a world increasingly bent on shaking pillars of authority, transparency stands as a guardsman to public trust. - **Disclosure Dynamics:** Elite gatekeepers must remember their responsibilities are under the glassy eyes of the public, open to scrutiny—a dazzling dance where missteps have consequences. Prediction? Expect more layers of the judicial veil to be peeled back. Either we find more dusty scrolls numbering hidden assets, or we craft new standards for disclosures that automatically banish such secrets to the moat. Who can escape the labyrinth of human frailty and moral complexities? Even justices aren’t immune to the tempo of temptation and oversight. History has shown that the honor of the high castle isn’t always tarnished in grandiose failures but in the myopic missteps of those sworn to uphold it. *--knights clinking goblets louder than secrets are whispered* As we delve deeper into these revelations, Uncle Sam’s twilight murmur reminds us: being a paragon doesn’t excuse us from periodic scrutiny, but poets and jesters alike believe that truth always emerges, commanded by time’s unforgiving gaze. https://lnkd.in/emdgfXDV #SupremeCourt #JudicialTransparency #JusticeAlito #FinancialDisclosure #USPolitics

𝐏𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐯𝐬 𝐅𝐥𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠 (𝟏𝟖𝟒𝟎) The judgment is significant because it clarifies "𝙣𝙚𝙘𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙖𝙧𝙞𝙚𝙨" for minors, establishes the jury's role in deciding necessity, and protects minors from contracts that are not for necessaries. It provides valuable guidance on minor contract principles and balances minor protection with accountability. Read More: https://lnkd.in/dKxB_gCK