UUÂãÁÄÖ±²¥

View the related checklists about CPR

Procedural guide—Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (civil remedy)

Procedural guide—Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (civil remedy) The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (PHA 1997) makes it an offence to pursue a course of conduct that amounts to harassment and creates a civil tort allowing for a claim for damages and ancillary injunctions. The High Court and county court can grant an injunction for personal protection by forbidding harassment. Where clients are unable to avail themselves of the provisions of the Family Law Act 1996 (FLA 1996) because they do not satisfy the criteria or eligibility, or where damages are sought, then their solution may lie under the PHA 1997. Claims under the PHA 1997 are not 'family proceedings' and applications are governed by the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, SI 1998/3132 (CPR). Criteria The relevant legislative provisions are contained in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. PHA 1997 Harassment is any course of conduct which might be seen by a reasonable person to amount to harassment. The victim of a course of conduct prohibited by PHA 1997, s...

View the related practice notes about CPR

Probate actions—lack of testamentary capacity

Probate actions—lack of testamentary capacity With increased life expectancy comes increased mental illness as people’s bodies outlive their minds. Dementia and other mental illnesses including depression, anxiety, psychosis, confusion and personality disorders may all impact a testator’s ability to make a Will. In addition, drug use, alcoholism and recent bereavement can have a significant impact on capacity. Analysis of the test for testamentary capacity For the purpose of assessing a deceased individual's testamentary capacity, recent case law maintains that the test under Banks v Goodfellow is still the appropriate test. That test provides that the testator must: • understand the nature of the act of making a Will and its effects • understand the extent of their estate of which they are disposing by Will • understand and appreciate any claims against their estate, and • not suffer from any ‘disorder of the mind’ such as to impair or influence the above factors In Leonard v Leonard the High Court set out an authoritative and...

Strike out—after a strike out order has been made

Strike out—after a strike out order has been made What happens after a strike out order has been made? CPR PD 3A, para 1.6 provides that where a rule, practice direction or order states ‘shall be struck out or dismissed’ or ‘will be struck out or dismissed’ this means that the striking out or dismissal will be automatic and that no further order of the court is required. When the court makes a strike out order, it can make any consequential order it considers appropriate (CPR 3.4(3)). See also CPR PD 3A, para 4.2, which provides that where a judge strikes out all or part of a party’s statement of case, they may ‘enter such judgment for the other party as that party appears entitled to’. As well as entering judgment for the other party, consequential orders could include that the party whose case was struck out pay the other party's costs. In Clutterbuck v Cleghorn for example, the Court of Appeal upheld the strike out of two...

View the related q&as about CPR

In the context of understanding whether or not permission is needed to serve debt proceedings on a company based in Jersey where there is an express jurisdictional clause in the contract submitting to the English courts, could Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) apply?

In the context of understanding whether or not permission is needed to serve debt proceedings on a company based in Jersey where there is an express jurisdictional clause in the contract submitting to the English courts, could Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) apply? This Q&A considers the relevance of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) when considering whether permission is required to serve out of the jurisdiction. What is the relevance of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 (Brussels I (recast)) when considering whether permission is required to serve out of the jurisdiction? Permission is not required to serve a claim form out of the jurisdiction where the factors in CPR 6.32 or CPR 6.33 are satisfied (note that CPR 6.32 is not relevant in this instance as it only applies to Scotland and Northern Ireland). CPR 6.33 sets out various scenarios where the permission of the court is not required to serve out of the UK. These include (at CPR 6.33(2)) reference to various provisions of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 (Brussels I...

When issuing a claim form (for a debt matter) where the defendant is a company based in Jersey, the court has advised we need to provide a completed Form N510 but they cannot advise which box to tick. How is Jersey classed?

When issuing a claim form (for a debt matter) where the defendant is a company based in Jersey, the court has advised we need to provide a completed Form N510 but they cannot advise which box to tick. How is Jersey classed? Jersey is part of the Channel Islands. The islands are a crown dependency. Form N510 can only be used where permission of the court is not required to serve a claim form out of the jurisdiction. it is therefore important to determine whether the court’s permission is required to serve the claim form in Jersey. Permission is not required if any of the provisions in CPR 6.33 apply. Where proceedings were issued prior to 31 December 2020 at 11 pm, permission will not be required if the provisions in CPR 6.33(2) apply. These cover proceedings in which: • the defendant is not a consumer, but is a party to a consumer contract within Article 17 of the Judgments Regulation • the defendant is an...