15 Attribution of multiplex revenue to licence holder and others
Broadcasting Act 1996 (1996 c 55) | Legislation

15  Attribution of multiplex revenue to licence holder and others

(1)     For the purposes of section [17(2A) and (2B)], the share of multiplex revenue attributable to [the person who is the multiplex provider in relation to any television multiplex service] in respect of any accounting period of his shall be—

(a)     the aggregate of—

(i)     payments falling within paragraphs (a) or (b) of section 14(1), and

(ii)     payments received or to be received by him from programme providers and additional services providers

Powered by Lexis+®
 

Popular documents

LEXISNEXIS

Motor claims in the Portal—a practical guide (Stage 1)

Motor claims in the Portal—a practical guide (Stage 1)The Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents—30 April 2013 onwardsSTOP PRESS: A new RTA small claims protocol for whiplash claims comes into effect for accidents occurring on or after 31 May 2021. The

LEXISNEXIS

Costs and the ‘without prejudice’ rule

Costs and the ‘without prejudice’ ruleCosts determination and the ‘without prejudice’ ruleAn issue for practitioners is whether correspondence marked ‘without prejudice’ can be used against a party when the court comes to determine the issue of costs. The Court of Appeal in Walker v Wilsher (1889)

LEXISNEXIS

Transferred malice

Transferred maliceThe principle of transferred maliceIf a person has a malicious intent towards X and, in carrying out that intent, injures Y, he is guilty of an offence. So, if D shoots at A with intent to kill him but kills B by mistake it is murder; the mistake as to the identity of the victim is

LEXISNEXIS

Standard of care in professional negligence claims

Standard of care in professional negligence claimsThis Practice Note considers the standard of care in professional negligence claims, originally formulated in Bolam v Friern Hospital as being that of reasonable skill and care but now reconsidered following Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health. It