UUÂãÁÄÖ±²¥

View the related checklists about Respondent

Family provision claims—table of cases

Family provision claims—table of cases Spouse or civil partner of the deceased Topic Case name Summary Author Spouse of the deceased Ramji v Harvey (in his capacity as executor of the estate of Sugrim Orlando Ramji deceased) and others [2023] EWHC 1664 (Ch) News Analysis: Lifetime transaction set aside on the basis of undue influence (Ramji v Harvey).In this preliminary issue trial in a claim under I(PFD)A 1975, the court set aside a transfer finding that the relationship between the deceased and the surviving spouse was one of trust and confidence resulting in a presumption of undue influence. Holly Challenger, Parklane Plowden Chambers Spouse of the deceased Re estate of Singh (deceased) [2023] EWHC 304 (Fam) News Analysis: Spousal claim under I(PFD)A 1975 dealt with on an abbreviated basis (Re estate of Singh (deceased))The judge dealt with this claim on an abbreviated basis, as the claim was either uncontested or alternatively, if D3 were to contest the claim, summary judgment could be given.  Aimee Jones, Sternberg Reed LLP Spouse...

Procedural guide—application for a freezing order—family proceedings

Procedural guide—application for a freezing order—family proceedings Where there are concerns that a party intends to dispose of assets in a way that will defeat a claim for financial provision, or has already done so, immediate action may have to be taken to secure the assets. Freezing orders (historically known as Mareva injunctions) are an interim remedy and may be made under Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, Pt 20 or under the inherent jurisdiction. An application to restrain future dealings is most commonly made under section 37 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) or Schedule 5 Part 14, para 74(2) of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (CPA 2004). The purpose is to prevent a party removing assets located in England and Wales, or dealing with assets wherever they are located. The applicant has to show that there is a good arguable case against the respondent and a real risk that a judgment will go unsatisfied because of the disposal by the respondent, or that refusal...

View the related flowcharts about Respondent

Liquidated damages v penalty clause—checklist

Liquidated damages v penalty clause—checklist As seen in Practice Note: Contract interpretation—distinguishing between liquidated damages and penalty clauses, the task of determining whether or not a liquidated damages clause may be held to be unenforceable as a penalty is not always an easy one. While it will be a matter of construction for the courts in each case, there are a number of factors to consider when analysing the scope of an alleged liquidated damages clause and whether or not it may be susceptible to challenge as a penalty. If drafting a liquidated damages clause, it is essential that you keep these factors in mind in drafting the clause (and its relationship with related clauses). See: • Drafting and negotiating a liquidated damages clause—checklist • Precedent: Liquidated damages clause For specific consideration of how clauses in commercial contracts which provide for ‘default interest’ have been considered in the authorities, see: • Penalty interest rates in commercial contracts • Contract interpretation—distinguishing between liquidated damages and penalty clauses—When might default interest be...

View the related practice notes about Respondent

Adjudication—the Response

Produced in association with 4 Pump CourtThis Practice Note looks at the responding party’s defence to a Referral Notice in an adjudication—typically called the Response. The purpose of the Response is to set out clearly and concisely the responding party’s case—effectively comprising its pleadings, evidence, opening and closing submissions all rolled into one. This Practice Note considers the entitlement/requirement to serve a Response, the deadline for doing so, and issues that can be included in a Response, as well as providing practical tips for drafting it.Other helpful summaries on issues which may be relevant are available in Checklists: Key issues to consider on receipt of a Notice of Adjudication and Key issues to consider when preparing an Adjudication Response.Entitlement to serve a ResponseThe Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (HGCRA 1996) and the Scheme for Construction Contracts do not expressly provide for any response from the responding party to either the Notice of Adjudication or the Referral Notice. However, the adjudicator has a general power to issue directions relating to...

LCAM Expedited Arbitration Rules (2022)

LCAM Expedited Arbitration Rules (2022) Background Several arbitral institutions and indeed even the UNCITRAL have in recent years developed expedited or fast track rules for low value disputes and for parties looking to avoid a lengthy arbitration process. Typically, these rules provide for the arbitral process to be conducted on a truncated timeline with a final award to be rendered within three or six months of commencement. For a general discussion on Expedited Rules, see Practice Note: Expedited (aka fast-track) arbitration. This note considers LCAM’s Expedited Arbitration Rules (the Expedited Rules), which have been in force since 1 September 2022, see Practice Note: LCIA (2020)—guidance on creation of a fast-track procedure. As Article 1.2 of the Expedited Rules state, they entail ‘…a complete stand-alone documents-only procedure for the resolution of disputes through arbitration by a sole arbitrator appointed by LCAM. The procedure administered by LCAM under the Rules is intended to be simple, expedited and cost effective’. The LCAM Expedited Rules stand out from the crowd in the following...

View the related precedents about Respondent

Letter to central index of decree absolutes (pre-DDSA 2020)

Letter to central index of decree absolutes (pre-DDSA 2020) Central Family Court Decree Absolute Search Section First Avenue House 42–49 High Holborn London WC1V 6NP Dear [Insert name] We act for [insert name][, the [petitioner OR respondent] ]. [ [He OR She] has not seen [his OR her] [wife OR husband] for [insert number] years.] We should be obliged if you would carry out a search of the central index to see whether our client’s [wife OR husband] has, at

Draft order for an application to stay proceedings under art 29 of Brussels I (Recast) [Archived]

Draft order for an application to stay proceedings under art 29 of Brussels I (Recast) [Archived] ARCHIVED: This Precedent has been archived and is not maintained. This Precedent and associated drafting notes are for use in proceedings commenced in the courts of England and Wales at any time provided that the related proceedings in the EU Member State court were commenced on or before 31 December 2020 and the transitional provisions for jurisdiction in Articles 67 or 69 of the Withdrawal Agreement have been met. Claim No. [insert claim number]. [IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE [BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS [OF ENGLAND AND WALES OR IN [insert location] OR [Specify division] [Specify specialist court] [Insert location] DISTRICT REGISTRY THE COUNTY COURT AT [insert location] [BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS LIST before [The Honourable Mr Justice OR The Honourable Mrs Justice OR His Honour Judge OR Her Honour Judge OR Master OR District Judge] [insert name] dated: [insert date] between: [insert name]        Claimant/Respondent and ...

View the related q&as about Respondent

In an arbitration under the London Court of International Arbitration Rules 2014 (LCIA Rules 2014), how does a respondent learn of the date of commencement of the arbitration? Does that date correspond to the date on which the LCIA notifies the respondent of its receipt of the request for arbitration and of the registration fee?

In an arbitration under the London Court of International Arbitration Rules 2014 (LCIA Rules 2014), how does a respondent learn of the date of commencement of the arbitration? Does that date correspond to the date on which the LCIA notifies the respondent of its receipt of the request for arbitration and of the registration fee? The date of commencement of an arbitration under the London Court of International Arbitration Rules 2014 An arbitration in the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) is commenced by the claimant delivering the request for arbitration to the LCIA Registrar (the Registrar) (LCIA, Art 1). As this Q&A has identified, the date of commencement of an LCIA arbitration is the date of receipt of the request by the Registrar, subject to the actual receipt of the registration fee as provided by LCIA, Art 1.4. A respondent will learn of the date of the commencement from the LCIA secretariat. As a matter of practice, the LCIA secretariat will notify all parties simultaneously of...

In a criminal appeal to the Crown Court, CrimPR 34.2(5) proves that 'unless the respondent agrees that the Court should allow the appeal' a respondent's notice must be filed. What are the consequences of failure to do so? Would the appeal be allowed by default? Is the respondent permitted to file and serve a respondent's notice after this time?

In a criminal appeal to the Crown Court, CrimPR 34.2(5) proves that 'unless the respondent agrees that the Court should allow the appeal' a respondent's notice must be filed. What are the consequences of failure to do so? Would the appeal be allowed by default? Is the respondent permitted to file and serve a respondent's notice after this time? Criminal Procedure Rule (CrimPR), SI 2020/759, r 34.2 is entitled ‘Service of appeal and respondent’s notices’. CrimPR, SI 2020/759, r 34.2(5) provides as follows: 'Where the appeal is against conviction or against a finding of guilt, unless the respondent agrees that the court should allow the appeal— (a) the respondent must serve a respondent's notice on— (i) the Crown Court officer; and (ii) the appellant; and (b) the respondent must serve that notice not more than 15 business days after service of the appeal notice.' The clear inference is accordingly that, where the respondent intends to contest an appeal to the Crown Court, they are required to file a Respondent’s Notice...

View the related News about Respondent

Crying over spilt ‘milk’? Oatly loses TM battle to Dairy UK (Dairy UK v Oatly)

IP analysis: The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by Dairy UK Ltd and reinstated a declaration made by the UK Intellectual Property Office that Oatly AB's trade mark ‘POST MILK GENERATION’ was invalidly registered for oat-based goods. The court of appeal followed the ruling in VSW v TofuTown,and held that trade marks would fall within the definition of ‘designation’ under Regulation (EU) 1308/2013 (the ‘Regulation’) on labelling of agricultural products. Both the Regulation and VSW v TofuTown being assimilated law pursuant to the Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products Framework (Miscellaneous Amendments, etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. The trade mark ‘POST MLK GENERATON’ containing the term ‘milk’ shall be used exclusively for dairy products derived from animals. The court found that the trade mark was not of such a nature as to deceive the public, however, it failed to describe any characteristic of the oat-based products in question and was invalidly registered. Written by Andrew Rigden Green, partner, head of International Arbitration at Stephenson Harwood (Hong Kong).

MoD loses application to redo army reservists pension bias case

Law360: A Scottish tribunal has declined to reconsider a ruling that the Ministry of Defence's (MoD) refusal to let a retired army reserve officer join the armed forces’ pension scheme left him worse off than full-time military personnel.