In what sense is the City of London a &quot;corporation&quot;? According to its recently quoted annual report, legislation treats it &quot;as a corporation&quot;. In what sense is this true and in which is it not true?
Although the word typically refers to a specific type of business entity, &quot;corporation&quot; simply means a group (or &quot;body&quot;) of people or other entities that are collectively endowed with a status that treats them as though they were a single legal person that can exist indefinitely. In common-law jurisdictions like the U.K., this includes municipal corporations, which generally consist of the people living within the corporation's territorial boundaries, exercising their collective will through their elected representatives, and assigned certain rights and obligations as a result of their collective status. Although the same word is used, it would generally not be the case that a municipal corporation would be governed by the same laws as business corporations or trade guilds, which are also sometimes referred to as corporations. Barclay's and the City of London are both corporations, and therefore are treated as entities capable of making their own decisions, with rules allowing for their decision-making bodies to keep them &quot;alive&quot; in perpetuity. But there are also many obvious differences. The City of London does not have shareholders in the same sense that Barclays would, nor is it obligated to register its existence or undertake most of the other responsibilities facing a corporate entity. Wikipedia has more detail broken down by jurisdiction.
The phrase in question is clarifying that if the wall (excluding the support) is on one person's property, and the support crosses into another person's property, then it is not a party fence wall. Why make this clarification, given that if a wall doesn't stand "on lands of different owners", it can't be a party wall anyway? Architect's Legal Handbook: The Law for Architects suggests that this is because there is a different rule for walls which separate buildings, hence the need to highlight the difference (emphasis mine): ...rights of adjoining owners do not arise where only the foundations project on the to the adjoining land if the wall concerned is a boundary wall, not being part of a building, but they do arise if such a wall separates buildings belonging to different owners.
The shareholders can change who is the company director, but the company director runs the company (until he or she resigns or is forced to sign by the shareholders). So the company director is who has the say what happens in the company. If the contract is between Fred and John Smith directly, then I would expect John Smith to give the orders and to pay Fred. However, Tom is company director, so he can order Fred to stay off the company premises. He can't order Fred what to do, since there is no contract between Fred and the company, and the company won't pay Fred if it doesn't want to - it's up to John Smith to pay Fred from his own pocket. The whole setup is highly unusual. I would assume that the situation is unsatisfactory for everyone involved, so likely they will agree that the contract between John Smith and Fred is cancelled, that there is a new contract between Small Company Ltd and Fred, and from then on the company director gives the orders.
Laws of the host country do apply in foreign embassies, but the authorities of the host country may only enforce laws in a foreign embassy by invitation of the foreign diplomatic delegation. So the general question would be whether the German embassy in London is bound by German law or by British law? It is subject to both, but the embassy can decide to what extent British law applies. In the case of a mask mandate imposed by British authorities, the embassy may require its occupants and visitors to comply with the conditions imposed under British law. It could also refrain from imposing such a requirement. In fact, unless German law prohibits a mask requirement, it can impose a mask requirement on its own initiative even if there is none imposed by British law nor German law. Is the German embassy London bound by the Equality Act 2010 and cabinet office guidance on medical mask wearing exemptions? It is not bound, but it may comply voluntarily.
Part answer to Q1: Is my conceptualization correct? No, insofar that your Points 1 to 4 are all &quot;completely illegal&quot; regardless of how the authorities deal with them, and the rest are not, on the face of it, crimes but presumably civil wrongs (which can be dealt with by, for example, fines or restraint / good behaviour / banning orders etc without one having a &quot;criminal conviction&quot;). Also: if the authorities, for whatever reason, decide against dealing with crime then it hasn't been &quot;decriminalised&quot; - that is the remit of the law makers, not the law enforcers. It's still a crime but with a lower political/ operational etc priority.
Yes Companies can own companies - that’s what subsidiaries are. On a practical level, you know this is true because you actually have an example. Companies House would not have allowed its registration (barring error) if it was illegal. Why can’t it open a bank account? Banks (or any other business) can choose who they will and won’t do business with. Unless it’s discrimination on the basis of a protected characteristic, it’s not illegal. Since juridical persons don’t have protected characteristics (apart from nationality) it’s virtually impossible to illegally discriminate against them.
Does this mean everybody using the Google Maps API is in violation of the terms of use? No. 'Incorporate' could mean several different things but clause 10.5(f) would be interpreted in its context. The other paragraphs within clause 10.5 relate to conduct by which you use Google's data to populate your own system or obscure the fact that you are using Google's system to provide a service. Accordingly, the kind of 'incorporation' whereby your software makes part of the Google Maps system's user interface appear as part of your software's user interface is not prohibited. The other key bit of context is the fact that Google Maps is obviously intended to be used. It would be absurd to offer a service and, in the terms of service, prohibit anybody from using it. A court would interpret the words such as to avoid such absurdity. See e.g. Dockside Holdings v Rakio [2001] SASC 78; Westpac Banking Corporation v Tanzone [2000] NSWCA 25.
Just because you can doesn’t mean you should I’m a professional electrical engineer and a licensed electrician. That means I can do electrical wiring but most electricians who do nothing else can do it quicker, better and neater than I can. Just because a solicitor-advocate can do the job of a barrister doesn’t mean that’s in their client’s best interest.