"We rely on ÀÏ˾»úÎçÒ¹¸£Àû to give us a definitive answer, quickly and reliable every time so that we can be confident in the advice we use to help our clients."
Shelter
Access all documents on Principals
A principal offender is the actual perpetrator of the offence.
Where there are several participants in a crime, the principal offender is the one whose act is the most immediate cause of the actus reus. There may, however, be more than one cause and more than one direct contributor to a crime, eg where two persons attack another intending to kill him and the combined effect of their blows is fatal, making the participants criminally liable as joint principals. Where an offence is committed through an innocent agent, the principal offender is the person who is the most immediate cause of the agent's acts.
Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business–all whilst saving time and reducing risk.
For our full legal glossary and more legal research sources, register for a free Lexis+ trial
FCA consultation paper tracker—2019 [Archived] This tracker sets out the consultation papers published by Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in 2019, along with the publication of any subsequent rules and guidance. For details of FCA consultation papers from other years, see: FCA consultation paper trackers. For details of Prudential Regulation authority (PRA) and Financial Services Authority (FSA) consultation papers, see: • PRA consultation paper tracker [Archived] • FSA consultation paper tracker [Archived] Topic area Consultation Paper Description Publication date End of consultation period Policy Statement/Handbook Notice BrexitAuthorisation, approval and supervisionComplaints, compensation and claims managementRegulation of capital marketsPayment services and systems Regulation of personal pension and stakeholder products CP19/33: Quarterly Consultation No 26 The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has published Quarterly Consultation Paper No 26 (CP19/33), in which it consults on proposed miscellaneous amendments to the FCA Handbook:—clarification of the rules relating to Financial Services Compensation Scheme claims against appointed representatives and principals—changes to the Listing Rules’ requirements, which cross-refer to the Prospectus Regulation, for information to...
Timetable—hostile offer This is a detailed timetable for a hostile takeover offer. It has been compiled by reference to the provisions of the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers (Code) and relevant statutory rules. The timetable covers the steps leading up to the announcement of a firm intention to make an offer (Rule 2.7 announcement) up until the completion of any ‘squeeze-out’ procedure. Changes can occur to the timetable: for example, document preparation may take a shorter time than planned or the emergence of a rival offer may cause the timetable to default to that of the competing offeror. For other examples of timetables used on takeover transactions, see: • Timetable—recommended offer • Timetable—scheme of arrangement Public company takeovers quiz: Part 3 of our public company takeovers quiz includes questions which tests users’ knowledge of the new offer timetable for takeover transactions. The quiz is in multiple choice format and at the end of each question the correct answer is displayed together with feedback and links to relevant materials. The...
Discover our 13 Checklists on Principals
Timetable—hostile offer—before 5 July 2021 [Archived] This archived timetable covers the key steps on a hostile offer that is announced before 5 July 2021. It has not been maintained since the Code’s revision in July 2021. For other examples of timetables used on takeover transactions, see: • Timetable—recommended offer—before 5 July 2021 • Timetable—recommended offer • Timetable—hostile offer • Timetable—scheme of arrangement On 31 March 2021 the Takeover Panel (Panel) published a response statement in which it confirmed that it would be proceeding with amendments to the Code relating to the treatment of offer conditions and the offer timetable. The amended Code applies to all firm offers which are announced on or after 5 July 2021 (implementation date), except where to do so would give the amendments retroactive effect. Any ongoing firm offers which straddle the implementation date, and any offers announced on or after the implementation date which are in competition with such ongoing offers, continue to be subject to the unamended provisions of the Code. Appendix D to...
In–house lawyer essentials: key issues in securitisation transaction A bank or financial institution may undertake multiple roles in a securitisation transaction. The extent of an in-house counsel’s involvement in that transaction will be dictated by those roles and by the nature and the complexity of the particular transaction. This Practice Note focuses predominately on ‘true sale’ securitisations (issued under Regulation S of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended) where there is a third-party originator and the bank is acting in an ‘agency’ capacity. It sets out those points to consider which are in addition to or different from those to consider in a Vanilla bond issuance (see Practice Note:Tips and traps for in-house lawyers—key issues in issuing syndicated vanilla bonds issuances). Additional considerations apply for other types of securitisation or where the assets are originated or bought by the bank or an affiliate of the bank prior to being securitised. General points to consider What role(s) is the bank being appointed to undertake? The first point...
Discover our 178 Practice Notes on Principals
Sales and marketing agency agreement for services—non-exclusive—pro-agent This Agreement is made on [date] Parties 1 [insert name of party] [of OR a company incorporated in [England and Wales] under number [insert registered number] whose registered office is at] [insert address] (Principal); and 2 [insert name of party] [of OR a company incorporated in [England and Wales] under number [insert registered number] whose registered office is at] [insert address] (Agent), (each of the Principal and the Agent being a party and together the Principal and the Agent are the parties). Background (A) The Principal supplies the Services (as defined below). (B) The Principal wishes to appoint the Agent as its non-exclusive agent in the Territory (as defined below) for the [marketing OR marketing and sale] of the Services on the terms of this Agreement. (C) The Agent has agreed to [market OR market and sell] the Services in the Territory on the Principal’s behalf on the terms of this Agreement....
Settlement agreement—arbitration This settlement Agreement is made on [date] Parties 1 [Name of entity], a [type of entity] with [type of liability] incorporated under the laws of [jurisdiction] with its registered address at [address] and with company number [company number] (Party 1); and 2 [Name of entity], a [type of entity] with [type of liability] incorporated under the laws of [jurisdiction] with its registered address at [address] and with company number [company number] (Party 2), each a ‘Party’ and together the ‘Parties’. Recitals: (A) A dispute has arisen between the parties [add relevant detail to give context to the dispute] (the Dispute). (B) On [date], Party 1 commenced arbitration proceedings against Party 2 (the Arbitration). On [date], the tribunal (comprising [arbitrators]) was appointed (the Tribunal). (C) [Provide further background information available to give context to this Agreement, including a brief description of the Arbitration, the arbitration agreement, the rules/procedures governing the Arbitration, whether the Arbitration is being administered by an arbitral institution and the case...
Dive into our 19 Precedents related to Principals
What key issues should be considered where customer (C) has a direct relationship with supplier (A) (who works with nominated supplier (B) on C's behalf), if C wishes to implement a direct rebate scheme with B? The nature of the legal relationships Its important to be clear on the nature of the legal relationships between each of supplier A, supplier B and customer C. It is stated that customer C and supplier A have a direct contractual relationship between them. It will be necessary to review the terms of that contract, in order to identify if the proposed course of action will be in breach of the specific terms of the agreement, or otherwise cause a conflict or ambiguity leading to a commercial risk. It is stated that ‘A works with another nominated supplier B on our behalf’. ‘On our behalf’ indicates the possibility that supplier A may be acting in some capacity as an agent of C in its dealings with supplier B. Agency is a relationship under which...
A is resident in the UK and was injured by a foreign registered driver and lorry (Poland) on a road in the UK. The foreign insurer (UK representatives) have accepted primary liability. Limitation is coming up and I need to issue the claim form only as we are not yet ready to serve. I have written to the UK representatives explaining that we intend on commencing court proceedings directly against their insurer principal pursuant to the European Communities (Rights against Insurers) Regulations 2002, SI 2002/3061. I have also asked them to confirm the full name and address details of the insurance company and driver. Can I serve on the representatives if they are nominated? Where a person has been injured in a road traffic accident which occurred in the UK but was caused by the driver of a foreign registered vehicle normally based in another participating country, the claim will be handled under the Green Card scheme either by the British insurer acting as correspondent or, if there is no...
See the 34 Q&As about Principals
Construction analysis: The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) dismissed a claim for damages for professional negligence by a property developer against a consultant engineer after finding that the engineer had failed to act with reasonable skill and care, because the property developer had not relied on the advice given and would not have done anything differently had non-negligent advice been given. The court held that the property developer had failed to establish a sufficient nexus between a particular element of the harm for which it sought damages and the subject matter of the engineering company’s duty of care.
Law360: The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) censured Prima Insurance on 20 November 2024 for failing to properly explain the costs over more than a year of a policy add-on to thousands of consumers.
Read the latest 260 News articles on Principals
**Trials are provided to all ÀÏ˾»úÎçÒ¹¸£Àû content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these ÀÏ˾»úÎçÒ¹¸£Àû services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK, Ireland and selected UK overseas territories and Caribbean countries. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
0330 161 1234