Application meaning

Introduction to freezing injunctions and scope of this checklist A freezing injunction (also known as a freezing order) is a temporary court order that prevents a respondent from disposing of or transferring its assets out of the relevant jurisdiction—namely England and Wales—or, in the case of a worldwide freezing order (WFO), from moving them anywhere in the world. The court’s principal aim in granting such relief is to preserve the respondent’s assets so that, if the applicant later obtains judgment against the respondent, there will be assets available for recovery by the applicant and, if necessary, enforcement action. This Checklist explains how to make an application for a freezing injunction where claims are contemplated or already underway in a corporate or personal insolvency context. As the precise circumstances of each matter must be assessed, this Checklist does not claim to be exhaustive; rather, it provides an overview of the key considerations at each stage when seeking an order of this kind. The focus throughout is asset preservation pending determination...

Checklist The Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI), a part of HM Treasury, is responsible for communicating, implementing and enforcing financial sanctions in the UK. It also holds powers to grant licences that permit an activity or transaction which would otherwise be prohibited under the UK financial sanctions regime. OFSI may only issue licences connected to financial sanctions. If your application concerns a different sanction, such as trade or immigration, you must send it to the appropriate Department. See further Practice Note: Understanding the financial sanctions regime. This Checklist brings together the requirements for applying to OFSI for a financial sanctions licence, alongside recommendations to help make your application faster and easier. These are drawn from multiple sources, including the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 (SAMLA 2018) and regulations made under it, various OFSI guidance materials, and guidance from the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). This Checklist also signposts relevant content to support compliance with these requirements and suggestions. A section is provided for you to indicate completion...

Test for delay A stay is an exceptional measure, invoked only as a last resort. The court will stay proceedings only if it is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that delay means a fair trial cannot take place. In this context, two principal bases can justify a stay: the defendant can no longer have a fair trial it is not fair for the defendant to be tried at all The burden is on the defendant to show, on the balance of probabilities, that a fair trial is no longer achievable. Even if delay is proved, the judge retains a discretion to refuse a stay where the trial’s fairness can be protected by appropriate case management...

A straightforward visual chart clearly depicts Scotland's civil court system in a simple form...

This Flowchart This Flowchart outlines the key questions to consider when assessing the territorial reach or scope of statutory employment rights—specifically, which statutory rights, if any, apply to an employee who works abroad and/or has a foreign employer. For general guidance on territorial application or scope, see Practice Note: The territorial scope of statutory employment rights. For Flowcharts that address applicable law and jurisdiction, refer to Determining applicable law in employment disputes—flowchart and Determining jurisdiction in employment disputes (1 January 2021 onwards)—flowchart...

This flowchart relates to losses incurred before 1 April 2017 that are set against profits arising in those relevant accounting periods that commence before 1 April 2017...

Antitrust A fresh appeal has been filed before the General Court in Case T- 19/25, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries and Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe v Commission, challenging the Commission’s decision in Teva (Copaxone) (AT.40588) and requesting that the fine-imposing infringement ruling be annulled—see further, application A fresh appeal has been submitted before the General Court in Case T- 682/24, Red Bull and Others v Commission, brought against the Commission for failing to reimburse additional costs incurred due to the disproportionate prolongation of an inspection—see further, application NOTE—For all...

Antitrust The application in Case C-60/25 Livronsa has now been published, an Italian national reference asking whether national courts must regard the Euribor manipulation evidence confirmed by the Commission and the Court of Justice as conclusive, and whether the ensuing competition restriction applies only to the derivatives market or instead to all markets that use the manipulated Euribor benchmark—see also the application The General Court has recently issued an order in Case T-413/21 Feralpi v Commission, an action lodged against the Commission for failing to pay Default Interest as required by the General Court in Cases C-85/15 Feralpi v Commission...

Mergers Following a phase I investigation, the Commission approved the formation of a joint venture between STRABAG AG and Becker Umweltdienste GmbH (M.11790)—see further, Midday Express. The Commission received notifications for: General Atlantic/PSG/Hostaway (M.11864) (simplified merger procedure) Eichler Consulting/Maximilian Aicher/Evelyne Maria Aicher/Wolfgang Reitzle/Telchar Investments/RMH Production (M.11842) (simplified merger procedure) Ares/GCP (M.11787) (simplified merger procedure) Note—For ongoing merger investigations before the Commission, see the EU mergers—ongoing cases tracker. State aid The Court of Justice held a hearing in Case C‑632/23 Commission v Bulgaria (Échanges de terrains forestiers II), an action brought by the Commission against Bulgaria for failing to comply with Decision SA.26212 concerning aid granted to private forest owners—see further, application. Note—For all live State aid appeals before the Court of Justice, see the Court of Justice State aid appeals—ongoing cases tracker. Upcoming dates For dates of forthcoming EU competition developments, see...

For many years, virtually every disagreement about agricultural tenancies was sent to arbitration at the outset. The rationale was that questions concerning agricultural holdings often have a strong practical dimension, so arbitration was thought a more suitable forum than the courts. This reflected the earlier assumption that practical considerations predominated in such cases, making a court reference less apt back then. Over time, however, matters of considerable legal intricacy also came before arbitrators. With the enactment of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003 (AH(S)A 2003), policy shifted, and the main route for resolving disputes about agricultural tenant issues is now referral to the Scottish Land Court. At the same time, arbitration procedures were streamlined, and alternative processes, eg mediation, were enabled. Although the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991 (AH(S)A 1991) still sets out distinct mechanisms for dispute resolution, AH(S)A 2003 has substantially reshaped them, so that the arrangements for resolving disputes under 1991 Act Tenancies are, in large part, aligned with those for 2003 Act Tenancies...

This Resource Note spotlights commentary, analysis and materials to aid interpretation and give practical guidance on applying Chapters 1, 1A, 1B and 1C of the Disclosure Guidance and Transparency Rules: DTR 1, DTR 1A, DTR 1B and DTR 1C respectively. Materials referenced here include, where pertinent: the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) Handbook FCA Knowledge Base guidance—Procedural notes and Technical notes (constituting formal guidance and binding on the FCA) FCA consultation papers, discussion papers, policy statements, feedback statements and warnings Primary Market Bulletins and other FCA publications former UKLA technical and procedural notes and the UKLA newsletter List!, where still relevant to interpreting or applying a provision assimilated EU legislation EU Directives and EU Regulations, where relevant to interpreting a provision Lexis+ UK analysis and resources Setting the scene What it covers: DTR 1 sets out the Disclosure guidance, explaining its scope and purpose; DTR 1A sets out the transparency rules with their scope and purpose;...

Planning conditionality A large proportion of property deals entail various rights and duties that depend upon, or are activated by, the granting of (a satisfactory) planning permission...

INSOLVENCY ACT APPLICATION NOTICE Case No: [ insert case number ]. Court: High Court (Business and Property Courts, Insolvency and Companies List (ChD)) OR Business and Property Courts in [ insert location ] OR County Court at [ insert location ] (Business and Property Work). In the matter of [ insert company’s name ] and the Insolvency Act 1986. Parties: [ Insert Applicant(s) ] v [ Insert Respondent(s) ]. Under IR 2016 r 18.23. Parties and addresses: Applicants [ names/addresses ]; Respondents [ names/addresses ]. Application relates to [ details ]. Judge: [ level ]. Venue: [ court/hearing centre ]. Ref: [ number ]. Orders sought: Fix remuneration at £[ insert sum ] plus VAT; disbursements £[ insert sum ]. Costs to be an expense of the [ liquidation/administration ]. Any further order or relief the court considers appropriate. Grounds: witness statement of [ name ], dated [ date ]. Service/notice: [ names/addresses, if any, or none ]. Address for...

Claimant [ initial and family name ]: First: [ date ] BEFORE [ HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE ] [ CHANCERY DIVISION ] [ BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES ] [ PROPERTY, TRUSTS AND PROBATE LIST ] Claim Reference...

In the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal No: XXXAPPLICANT NAME – AppellantANDSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT Application for costs under 9 (2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014, SI 2014/2604 1 Introduction This application is brought pursuant to paragraph 9 (2) (b) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014, SI 2014/2604. The appellant seeks a costs order on the basis that the respondent has behaved unreasonably in the conduct of these proceedings. 2 This application has been made in-time, within 28 days of the date of [ insert relevant event or decision ] and has been served on the respondent. 3 Background The appellant is pursuing an appeal against a refusal of her human rights claim. A’s claim was refused on [ insert date ] and an appeal was submitted on [ insert date ]. The Tribunal listed a substantive hearing for [ date ] at [...

Duty to make reasonable adjustments The Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010) establishes a duty to make reasonable adjustments (referred to below as ‘the duty’), which contains three distinct requirements. The third requires that, where a disabled person would, without the provision of an auxiliary aid, face a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter when compared with people who are not disabled, such steps as are reasonable must be taken to supply the auxiliary aid. The situations in which the duty arises differ across workplace settings. Accordingly, the precise circumstances that engage the duty will not be uniform across all settings. For all three requirements, the duty is triggered only where a disabled individual is placed at a substantial disadvantage compared with non‑disabled people ‘in relation to a “relevant matter”’, and what counts as a ‘relevant matter’ (as defined in EqA 2010, Sch 8 Pt 1) varies according to the particular type of workplace. As a result, application of the duty is context‑specific to the workplace in question....

Right to rent scheme The duties imposed by the right to rent scheme extend to all relevant lettings described in Practice Note: Residential tenancies—a tenant’s right to rent under the Immigration Act 2014, except where a letting is an excluded tenancy set out in Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 2014 (IA 2014), also cited in that Practice Note. Be aware that social housing—as defined in IA 2014, Sch 3—is outside scope entirely...

Employment Rights Act 1996 (Coronavirus, Calculation of a Week’s Pay) Regulations 2020 (Week’s Pay Amendment Regs 2020), SI 2020/814 For broader guidance on SI 2020/814, see Practice Note: Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme—right to statutory redundancy and other termination payments [Archived]. This resource provides general context on the Employment Rights Act 1996 (Coronavirus, Calculation of a Week’s Pay) Regulations 2020 and their application... The Week’s Pay Amendment Regs 2020, SI 2020/814, prescribe how to determine a week’s pay for an employee who is, or has previously been, furloughed under the CJRS. The rules apply when calculating specified payments, including an employee’s entitlement to payment under section 88 or 89 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996). In effect, the instrument clarifies the approach to weekly pay where furlough is relevant, ensuring the correct basis is used for these statutory sums linked to notice or other termination-related payments as identified under the ERA 1996...