We publish a number of informative and topical newsletters based around our service and business areas. It is important to us that we continually share ideas, information and best practice with our clients and contacts so everyone can benefit from news on new law, comment on topical events, and information on upcoming issues which will have a bearing on you and your business activities.
The content of these publications is for general information only and does not constitute advice on any specific matter. While every effort has been made to ensure the content of these publications is accurate and up to date, no representation or warranty, express or implied, is made as to their accuracy or completeness and they are not a substitute for legal advice. You should seek specific legal advice on any particular matter which is relevant to you. We will not be liable for any losses arising out of any reliance placed on any content of these publications by you, or any person informed of the contents.
There are numerous reasons why a company may wish to buy back its own shares from its shareholders. For example, the company may wish to return surplus cash to shareholders, increase earnings per share or provide an exit route for a shareholder who is retiring or having his employment terminated. The Companies Act 2006 sets out the statutory procedure which must be followed when a company purchases its own shares. Last month, changes were made to that regime by the Companies Act 2006 (Amendment of Part 18) Regulations 2013, which came into force on 30 April 2013 (the 2013 Regulations).
Yet another recent case has highlighted that rights of light continue to inhibit development. Dan Shaw reports on Pavledes -v- Hadjisavva and explores the implications of the Law Commission's proposals to redress the uneven balance between developer and private landowner.
The Court of Appeal affirmed that the characteristics of a town and village green are not set in stone when it overturned the High Court's decision in R (on the application of Newhaven Port and Properties Ltd) -v- East Sussex County Council  EWCA Civ 276. Phil Scully looks at the facts and considers the basis upon which the court made its decision and the implications for developers.
Delays to completion of a development can incur significant costs for a developer. But what if the delay is caused by a consulting engineer? William Cursham considers the recent case of John Grimes Partnership Ltd -v- Gubbins  EWCA Civ 37 to see if there is recourse for the developer where it has been let down by its consulting engineer.