SCHEDULE 4 Further Provisions about Auditor Panels
Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 (2014 c 2) | Legislation

SCHEDULE 4 Further Provisions about Auditor Panels

Section 9

Options for auditor panels

1

(1)     The auditor panel of a relevant authority (“Râ€) must be—

(a)     a panel appointed as an auditor panel by R,

(b)     a panel appointed as an auditor panel by R and one or more other relevant authorities,

(c)     a committee of R to which sub-paragraph (2) applies, or

(d)     a panel to which sub-paragraph (3) applies.

(2)     This sub-paragraph applies to a committee of R (however described) which has not been appointed as an auditor panel if—

(a)     R determines that the committee should be R's auditor panel,

(b)     the committee agrees to be R's auditor panel, and

(c)     the committee complies with the other provisions applying to auditor panels made by or under this Schedule.

(3)     This sub-paragraph applies to a panel if—

(a)     the panel is (by virtue of any of paragraphs (a) to (c) of sub-paragraph (1)) the auditor panel of a relevant authority other than R,

(b)     R determines that the panel should be R's auditor panel,

(c)     the panel agrees to be R's auditor panel, and

(d)     the panel complies (as regards R) with the other provisions

Powered by Lexis+®
 

Popular documents

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

Strict liability

Strict liabilityStrict liabilityWhen an offence does not require proof of a mental element it is an offence of strict liability. There are some common law offences of strict liability (eg public nuisance, outraging public decency and contempt) most though are statutory, arising often under

LEXISNEXIS

Section 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 allows a claimant to claim damages for non-fraudulent

Section 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 allows a claimant to claim damages for non-fraudulent misrepresentation, unless the representor can prove they had reasonable grounds for believing the statement to be true. If the representor had reasonable grounds for believing the statement to be

LEXISNEXIS

The British Franchise Association (BFA)

The British Franchise Association (BFA)This Practice Note examines the role and remit of the British Franchise Association (the BFA) in the franchise industry in the UK. It looks at the legislative and regulatory framework in the franchise industry, the membership criteria of the BFA, the BFA’s Code