Ancillary relief meaning

Seeking a freezing injunction is rarely straightforward. Significant procedural and substantive obstacles must be addressed and overcome before a court will restrict a respondent’s ability to handle their own assets. The need to move at speed and obtain urgent relief to avert imminent asset dissipation frequently adds further complexity and pressure, requiring swift, decisive action. The Checklist below acts as a starting point, flagging the principal issues to consider when preparing and making the application. It is tailored to a without notice application for a domestic or worldwide freezing injunction against a proposed defendant. For fuller, general guidance on applying for a freezing injunction, see the following Practice Notes: Freezing injunctions—guiding principles Freezing injunctions—the application Pre-application considerations Before issuing any application for a freezing injunction, ensure the client fully grasps and is properly prepared for the scale and intensity of the undertaking, and that careful thought has been given to the suitability of seeking this relief in the first place. ...

Introduction This checklist sits alongside the more detailed Practice Note: Negotiation guide—services agreements. It serves as a quick-look aide and concentrates on the principal, generic points that commonly surface across most forms of services agreement. It leaves out certain specialist matters addressed in Practice Note: Negotiation guide—services agreements that tend to arise only in particular categories of services arrangements or those of greater complexity (eg acceptance testing, audit rights, TUPE, step-in rights, benchmarking and exit assistance). It sets out the customer’s and the supplier’s optimal stances for each topic, then offers a proposed middle-ground position (which is not intended to be comprehensive). For deeper analysis and explanation of each point, refer to Practice Note: Negotiation guide—services agreements. For balanced precedent contracts, which implement much of what is explored here and in the negotiation guide, see Precedents: Services agreement—one-off supply—balanced, Services agreement (ongoing supply)—balanced and Framework services agreement—single contract with call-off orders—balanced. This checklist is relevant only to business-to-business dealings in commercial practice...

The impact bankruptcy and divorce proceedings have on one another How bankruptcy intersects with divorce has been examined in a raft of decisions in both the bankruptcy jurisdiction and the family courts. Regrettably, it is far from rare for a bankruptcy to be underway whilst a divorce is progressing, and running the two together can produce clashes over how assets are apportioned. Such concurrent proceedings often bring the division of property into sharp focus, as priorities compete. The family court, for its part, aims to make a property adjustment order, assessing, among other factors, the future needs of the spouses and any children; by contrast, the bankruptcy court divides the assets with creditors’ interests placed foremost in the decision-making. This possible tension must be weighed with care, and, in practice, the key issue is timing: when the bankruptcy was commenced compared with the date a property adjustment order was made. This checklist and timeline outlines the effect each step in bankruptcy can have on ancillary relief proceedings within a...

In this issue: Horizon scanning Directors Employment contract Pay Tax Prohibited conduct protection at work Diversity and gender pay gap Whistleblowing Union status and obligations Financial services and banking: employment issues Employment tribunals Immigration IRLR Highlights—April 2025 New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers New Q&As Employment resources on Lexis+® LexTalk®Employment: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Horizon scanning Calls from businesses urging the UK government to moderate its employment law agenda have been largely set aside, with the Employment Rights Bill (ERB) further enhancing workers’ entitlements on 4 March 2025. See Law360: Employment Rights Bill is pro‑worker but not pro‑business. Directors The Department for Business and Trade (DBT) has issued the draft Companies (Directors’ Remuneration and Audit) (Amendment) Regulations 2025, which are undergoing parliamentary sifting as at 4 March 2025. The package is intended to streamline directors’...

See Q&A: A deceased individual held agricultural land in their sole name, used for sheep and cattle farming as a sole trader. They were also a partner with their spouse in a partnership operating a poultry farming business. The partnership owned no land, but among its assets was a poultry house situated on part of the agricultural land. The bulk of the land was employed in the deceased’s sole trader sheep and cattle enterprise. There was no formal arrangement covering the poultry house’s use of the land. Can agricultural property relief be claimed on all the land (including the area occupied by the poultry house) and business property relief on the partnership (encompassing the poultry house)? For broad guidance on agricultural property relief (APR) and business property relief (BPR) and the qualifying criteria for each, see Practice Notes: IHT—agricultural property relief and IHT—business property relief. APR is available on the agricultural value of land and property; that is, on individual assets. BPR is available on the value of...

B v Erinvale PTC Ltd and others [2020] JRC213 (registration required) What are the practical implications of this case? The court restated the firm principle that it would be an excessive use of its powers to compel a trustee to act (in this instance, to make the wife a beneficiary in her own right) or to exercise any power to add the wife itself. As the trustee had not yielded its discretion to the court, that was not the court’s function, whether under Article 51 of the Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984 as amended, or otherwise. Instead, the court indicated it had “no doubt” that, on reflection, the trustee would now move to add the wife. The ruling also serves as a prompt to trust practitioners, when drafting, to consider carefully how a person’s position as a beneficiary might shift over time with changes in their marital status. What was the background? The matter arose from an ongoing matrimonial dispute in which the wife had begun divorce...

This Practice Note on economic torts This note summarises, at a high level, the key differences when pursuing claims for lawful means conspiracy, unlawful means conspiracy, the tort of unlawful interference, and procuring a breach of contract. Practice Notes: Civil conspiracy claims (economic tort) Lawful means conspiracy (civil action) Unlawful means conspiracy (civil action) Economic tort of unlawful interference The tort of procuring a breach of contract Closely connected to procuring a breach of contract is the so‑called ‘Marex tort’, a cause of action founded on an alleged deliberate infringement by the defendant of the claimant’s rights in a judgment debt; see Practice Note: The Marex tort (interference with a judgment debt). These claims may (though need not) involve a fiduciary or agent, including company directors. For further guidance, see: Claims against directors—key considerations for dispute resolution practitioners Agency disputes Fiduciary Duties Fiduciary duties—remedies for breach Such causes...

Asset disclosure orders in support of a freezing injunction This Practice Note offers guidance on asset disclosure orders made in aid of a freezing injunction (also called a Mareva injunction or freezing order). It sets out when the court may grant asset disclosure or further disclosure, the ambit of such orders, and briefly addresses confidentiality and the privilege against self-incrimination. It also covers orders concerning the source of legal funding and the cross-examination of a respondent about their assets. The Note explains how the relevant CPR provisions should be interpreted and applied. Depending on the forum hearing your case, you should also be alert to any additional requirements—see the main section titled Court specific guidance below. For broader background on freezing injunction applications and the governing principles, see Practice Notes: Freezing injunctions—guiding principles Freezing injunctions—post-judgment Freezing injunctions against third parties—the Chabra jurisdiction Freezing injunctions—the application Freezing injunctions—the draft order For guidance on other forms of relief commonly sought alongside...

This Practice Note explores the doctrine of separate legal personality for a registered company, and surveys the relevant case law addressing the narrow situations in which the corporate veil might be pierced. It also separates true piercing or lifting of the veil from the more routine instances in which the veil is sidestepped by reliance on another legal or equitable entitlement. The analysis underscores the limited nature of this intervention and the authorities that define it. Corporate legal personality—the Salomon principle A duly incorporated company is a person distinct from its members, holding its own rights and bearing its own liabilities as an independent legal subject. This rule, often called the corporate veil or the Salomon principle, was most famously articulated by Lord MacNaghten in Salomon v Salomon: the company, at law, is wholly separate from the subscribers to the memorandum; even if, after incorporation, the undertaking remains exactly as before, with the same individuals managing it and the same people receiving the profits, the company is not...