Advocate meaning

ARCHIVED: Checklist This archived Checklist outlines factors to bear in mind when advancing a matter before the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC), covering pre-action and the commencement of proceedings. It is not maintained and is supplied for background information only. Pre-action Select your chosen ‘counsel’. Permissible options are: an advocate and solicitor; a person admitted to practise as an advocate and solicitor under section 15 of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161) (an ad hoc admission); a foreign lawyer holding full registration under Legal Profession Act (Cap 161), s 36P. A foreign lawyer with the alternative ‘restricted registration’ may only undertake what is allowed by Legal Profession Act (Cap 161), s 36P(2). Consider whether an application for pre-action production of documents is necessary...

Checklist on attending court as an advocate This checklist explains the actions an advocate should take to attend a hearing with assurance and to be properly ready to act for the client in civil proceedings. Note, it is not designed to address the preparation of complex hearings, for example case management conferences (CMC) or trials. In addition, documents and instructions will be channelled through a solicitor, unless the advocate is instructed as a direct access advocate...

Mergers AG advises Court of Justice to reject appeal against conditional Phase II clearance of the PKN/Gupto Lotos merger Advocate General Medina has delivered his opinion in Case C-541/23 P, Polwax v Commission, an appeal against the General Court’s judgment in Case T-585/20 that upheld the Commission’s 14 July 2020 decision conditionally clearing the acquisition of PKN Orlen after a Phase II investigation (M.9104). He recommends that the Court of Justice dismiss the first ground of appeal, which concerns the definition of the upstream market. Background On 14 July 2020, the Commission approved, subject to conditions, the proposed acquisition of Lotos by PKN Orlen (the Commission’s 2020 decision). Lotos and LKN Orlen were two large Polish integrated oil and gas companies. Following its Phase II review, the Commission concluded that the merger would harm competition, notably in the following areas: the wholesale and retail supply of motor fuels in Poland; the supply of jet fuel in Poland and the Czech Republic; and ...

Antitrust Advocate General suggests Google’s refusal to provide third party access to Android Auto platform may breach Article 102 TFEU Advocate General Laila Medina issued her opinion in Case C- 233/23 Alphabet and Others, a national reference from Italy that seeks guidance and clarification on whether Google’s stance of denying third-party access to Android Auto (a mobile app for Android devices) infringes Article 102 TFEU. For context, Google is the developer of Android OS, an open-source operating system for Android mobile devices. In 2015, Google rolled out Android Auto, an app for mobile devices with an Android operating system that allows motorists to use certain smartphone apps via a car’s integrated display. Independent developers are able to produce iterations of their own apps that work with Android Auto by applying templates supplied by Google. Enel X (part of the Enel Group) delivers electric car charging services. In May 2018, it introduced JuicePass, an app which provides a suite of features for charging electric vehicles. In September 2018, Enel X...

In this issue: Horizon scanning Status and worker categories Cross-border, international and jurisdictional issues Benefits Prohibited conduct (discrimination etc) TUPE and asset purchases Bribery, modern slavery, tax evasion and fraud Employment Tribunals Immigration IRLR Highlights—January 2025 Dates for your diary Trackers New Q&As Employment resources on Lexis+® Daily and weekly news alerts Employment Highlights 2024/2025 Horizon scanning Employment Law—looking back at 2024 and ahead to 2025: The Lexis+® Employment team provide a concise overview of the standout employment law changes across 2024 and signpost what to watch in 2025, including movement on the Employment Rights Bill, the forthcoming employer duty to prevent sexual harassment, the Equality (Race and Disability) Bill, plus other impending legislation and significant cases. See News Analysis: Employment Law—looking back at 2024 and ahead to 2025. Status and worker categories MoD loses application to rehear army reservists pension bias case: In Milroy v...

CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the decision date of 14 March 2019 and is no longer updated. For more, see the timeline, commentary, and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Case C‑724/17 Vantaan Kaupunki v Skanska Industrial Solutions and others – a preliminary reference from Finland asking whether, in a damages action, a company that has carried on the economic activity of a cartel member can be held liable for infringing Article 101 TFEU. Latest developments On 6 February 2019, Advocate General Wahl issued his opinion, concluding that Article 101 TFEU should be interpreted so that, when determining who is liable to pay damages for harm caused by a breach of Article 101 TFEU, the principle of economic continuity applies. Accordingly, in a private damages claim before a national court, a claimant may seek compensation from a company that has continued the economic activity of a cartel participant. Parties Vantaan kaupunki Skanska...

In Scotland, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) is under a duty to reveal all material in its possession to the defence. This obligation to disclose applies to prosecutions under both summary and solemn procedure. For an overview of criminal investigation and prosecution policy in Scotland, see Practice Note: The investigation and prosecution of criminal offences in Scotland. For details on summary procedure in Scottish criminal proceedings, see Practice Note: Summary procedure in Scottish criminal proceedings and Scottish summary criminal procedure—flowchart. For information on solemn procedure in Scottish criminal proceedings, see Practice Note: Solemn procedure in Scottish criminal proceedings and Scottish solemn criminal procedure—flowchart. Background The Crown’s requirement to provide the defence with all material it holds arises from the accused’s right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The scope of the Crown’s disclosure duty was first defined in McLeod v HM Advocate. The Crown’s responsibilities were then refined by a series of rulings from the Judicial Committee...

CASE HUB See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Appeal challenging the General Court’s ruling in Case T‑612/17, which in part sustained an application to annul the Commission’s decision of 27 June 2017 in Google Search (Shopping) (AT.39740). Outcome On 11 January 2024, Advocate General Kokott issued her opinion recommending that the Court of Justice uphold the €2.4bn fine imposed on Google for giving preferential treatment to its own comparison shopping service. Parties Appellant: Google LLC and Alphabet, Inc (together, Google) Defendants: The European Commission Background Commission investigation The Commission launched a formal investigation in November 2011 after multiple complaints, including from search service providers, alleging adverse treatment of their services in Google’s organic and sponsored results alongside alleged preferential placement of Google’s own services. On 15 April 2015, the Commission announced the opening of formal proceedings to examine whether Google breached Article 101 and/or Article 102 TFEU through...

In the Family Court sitting at [ Court name ] Case no: [ Case number ] Proceedings under: The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 The Civil Partnership Act 2004 The Child Support Act 1991 Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989 The Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 The Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 and Schedule 7 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 The Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 The Married Women’s Property Act 1882 and ss 67, 68 and 74 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 OR [ (DELETE AS APPROPRIATE) ] The [ Marriage OR Civil Partnership OR Relationship OR Family ] of [ applicant name ] and [ respondent name ] Heard [ name the advocate(s) who appeared ]; considered documents filed by the parties [ [ (IN THE CASE OF AN ORDER MADE WITHOUT NOTICE) ] read the statements and heard the witnesses...

To The Judge In [ insert ] Court case number: [ insert ] between: [ insert parties ] Hearing date: [ insert ] Type of hearing: [ insert ] We are instructed by [ insert name of client ], the [ Claimant OR Defendant OR Respondent OR ] in the above proceedings. Our instructions are limited to representing the Claimant OR Defendant OR Respondent OR as advocate at the hearing on [ insert date ] [ , but not ] covering any further adjournments...

At the Family Court held at [ Court name ] Case No: [ Case number ] [ The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 OR The Civil Partnership Act 2004 OR The Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 and Schedule 7 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 OR The Senior Courts Act 1981 OR Children Act 1989, Schedule 1 ] The [ Marriage OR Civil partnership OR Relationship ] of [ applicant name ] and [ respondent name ] After hearing from [ name the advocate(s) who appeared ] Having reviewed the statements and heard the witnesses set out in the recitals below A freezing order was made by [ name of judge ] on [ date ], sitting in private To [ RESPONDENT NAME ] of [ RESPONDENT ADDRESS ] Warning: if you, [ RESPONDENT NAME ], fail to obey this order you may be found in contempt of court and could be imprisoned, fined, or have your assets seized Any...