Catch up meaning

In a globalised marketplace, conflicts in cross-border commerce are unavoidable. Traditionally, parties turned to international arbitration to settle such matters. They did so to steer clear of domestic courts seen as slow or partial. Yet arbitration brings drawbacks: fewer procedural protections, opaque processes, and patchy enforcement, which reduce trust and certainty. Hence the spread of international commercial courts (ICCs) — a new breed of national courts tailored for cross-border cases, engineered for transnational disputes (Gu & Tam, 2022, p. 445). Built to fuse the advantages of litigation and arbitration, ICCs are rapidly emerging as the favoured fora for intricate financial claims. This shift poses a key question: can judges drawn from disparate legal traditions produce outcomes that are consistent, fair, and predictable without common training? Judicial capability underpins confidence, and as ICCs expand in number, scale, and stature, a lack of standardised training threatens their legitimacy. Credibility turns on competence. A worldwide programme of judicial education could align decisions, strengthen trust, and improve efficiency. The stakes are substantial—and the world’s...

The inquiry stems from the difficulties surrounding digital proof exposed by the Post Office Horizon IT scandal. Currently, a rebuttable common law assumption holds that a machine generating evidential records functions properly, and that outputs created by software are accurate, so computer-derived material is deemed dependable unless contrary evidence is shown. When launching its call for evidence, the government said this assumption ‘proved flawed during the Horizon scandal’. In that episode, hundreds of blameless sub-postmasters were wrongly convicted on the strength of data from a system that was, in truth, not operating as it should. In reply, the government is commissioning an expert examination into removing or revising this assumption. The consultation is open until 15 April 2025 and invites input from individuals with experience of the criminal justice system, and/or computing and software, on how computer evidence ought to be defined and what should fall within the scope of any legal reform. The issue of how best to tackle the current rules to prevent further miscarriages of justice, as...

Section 234 of the Insolvency Act 1986 stops short of trespassers (Maher & Another v Investalet Ltd) Maher and Another v Investalet Ltd [2025] EWHC 3133 (Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling serves as a firm reminder that IA 1986, s 234 functions as a procedural device, not a catch‑all shortcut to vacant possession. It authorises an office‑holder to require delivery up of “property of the company” found in third-party hands, but it does not enhance the company’s substantive entitlements. In practice, office‑holders must differentiate between two situations: Occupiers whose rights flow from the company (for example, as tenant or licensee) and who hold something that can accurately be characterised as the company’s property within their possession, custody or control; and Occupiers who are, in truth, trespassers with a possessory stance that is weaker than the company’s title once any earlier tenancies or licences have ended. In the first scenario, IA 1986, s 234...

Practice Note While EMI share options can be highly tax‑efficient, they also carry notable traps. Poor drafting or faulty implementation can lead to serious tax consequences for both staff and the business. This Practice Note highlights the most frequent misconceptions and errors when: determining if a company is eligible to grant EMI options setting up an EMI scheme, and running an EMI scheme Specifically, it explains: what counts as an EMI option the fall‑out if an EMI option is drafted or put in place improperly the impact of mishandling an EMI qualifying option in operation recurring misunderstandings and errors when testing company eligibility to grant EMI options recurring misunderstandings and errors when establishing an EMI scheme recurring misunderstandings and errors when operating an EMI scheme, and ways to prevent errors and misconceptions when dealing with EMI options This Practice Note addresses only the common misunderstandings and mistakes concerning EMI...

What are growth shares? Growth shares are ordinary shares that only participate in a company’s capital value once a defined value hurdle is met. That hurdle may equal the company’s market value at the subscription date, but more often is set at a premium to the initial equity value. After the hurdle is cleared, growth shares can participate on any chosen basis—frequently ranking pari passu with other ordinary shares on value created over the hurdle—and may include terms that affect their initial valuation, such as: catch-up provisions ratchets similar features Returns on growth shares can be capped if desired, although many companies avoid a cap to preserve management’s incentive. For further information, see Practice Note: Growth shares (value shares). Why issue growth shares? The primary aim is to drive participants to create future value while ring-fencing current value for existing shareholders. Growth shares suit senior management incentives in particular, and situations where companies expect a steep growth curve...

There is no single, catch-all answer to whether a given organisation is, in law, a public authority. Instead, the courts have built up case law identifying which entities fall within administrative law through the judicial review route; and Parliament, for its part, has variously specified the public bodies it intends to cover for particular statutes, including the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) and the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FIA 2000). Judicial review Judicial review is the principal court process by which individuals and businesses can obtain a remedy for abuses of power by public authorities. It is a public law remedy, concerned solely with policing the exercise of powers of a public nature. Most judicial review claims target those plainly engaged in public power: ministers, government departments and agencies, devolved administrations and legislatures, local authorities, health and education authorities, police and prison services. Broadly, these are also the ‘core public authorities’ for the purposes of HRA 1998. Yet decisions of a public nature are not always...