The Legal 500

When a company is proposing to apply for admission of its shares to AIM on an initial public offering (IPO), legal due diligence is an integral part of the process required to be carried out by the company. Legal due diligence is primarily designed to help minimise potential liability for the company and its board of directors, who have primary responsibility for the admission document. The nominated adviser to a company, however, is also responsible to the London Stock Exchange for assessing the appropriateness of the company for AIM, and legal due diligence plays a key role in this. Legal due diligence will highlight at an early stage of the process any issues that need to be dealt with to ensure that the company will be suitable for admission to AIM. Through this process, the company will also gather the information required to be included in the admission document.

In Nzinga Maswaku v Westminster City Council [2012] EWCA Civ 669 the Court of Appeal clarified that in offering a homeless person with alternative temporary accommodation the local authority is obliged to point that if the offer is refused it has discharged its Part VII duties under the Housing Act 1996.

In Harrow LBC v Ayiku [2012] EWHC 1200 (Admin) Sales J held that the word “or” in the Council Tax (Exempt Dwellings) Order 1992, art 3 Class N, had a disjunctive meaning, therefore it was sufficient for the non-British spouse of a foreign student to satisfy one or other of the two conditions, namely being prevented from taking paid employment or being prevented from claiming benefits, in order to qualify as a “relevant person” who was exempted from liability to pay council tax.

Bills already introduced pursuant to the Queen’s Speech on 9 May 2012 include Local Government Finance Bill and Electoral Registration and Administration Bill, both accompanied by Explanatory Notes, which in each case address ECHR compatibility.

In R (Calver) v Adjudication Panel for Wales [2012] EWHC 1172 (Admin) Mr Calver was a member of Manorbier Community Council who successfully challenged the decision of the Panel to dismiss his appeal against a decision by Prembrokeshire County Council Standards Committee censuring him for a number of comments or blogs posted by him on a website he owned and controlled.

Clive Sheldon - QC debates the pros & cons of retrospective tax legislation

In R (Greenwich Community Law Centre) v Greenwich LBC [2012] EWCA Civ 496 the Court of Appeal held that the Council had had “due regard to the PSED when making changes to its funding of community legal advice services”. At para 30 Elias LJ said:

Surrey County Council conducted a review of its Library Service. This culminated in a Report to the Council’s Cabinet. The Recommendations in the Report included that there should be consultation about a community-partnership approach at selected Libraries.

The Judgment of Lindblom J in The Manydown Co Ltd v Basingstoke and Deane BC [2012] EWHC 977 (Admin) repays attention. The Claimant sought to challenge by judicial review 2 decisions of the Council: (1) the Council’s refusal to reconsider its position on the development of a site that it owns (and is the subject matter of a Joint Development Partnership Agreement with the Claimant); and (2) a decision of the Council’s Cabinet approving a selection of sites for development which did not include this site.

After its torrid passage through Parliament, the Health and Social Care Bill received Royal Assent on 27 March 2012. The Act deals principally with healthcare reform, but it also contains some amendments to the legislative framework for social care. It will come into force on a day yet to be appointed by the Secretary of State.

In this issue: