CI meaning

CI v IU [2025] HKCFI 4397 What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling underscores the stringent bar for obtaining leave to appeal under sections 5 and 6 of Schedule 2 to the AO, reinforcing the Hong Kong court’s arbitration-friendly stance. More importantly, it delivers long-anticipated guidance on whether the court’s jurisdiction to entertain an appeal on a ‘question of law’ is restricted to Hong Kong law issues. Unlike the English regime, which expressly confines a ‘question of law’ to ‘a question of the law of England and Wales’, the Hong Kong court, albeit in obiter, adopted a broader and adaptable outlook here. Advancing a spectrum concept, the court differentiated between genuinely ‘exotic’ governing laws and foreign laws that closely resemble Hong Kong law (as in this dispute). How the Hong Kong courts will approach a question of law rooted in a genuinely ‘exotic’ legal system is left open for resolution on another day. It is likewise uncertain whether this reasoning will attract adherence in subsequent...

In this issue: Court of Protection Elderly and vulnerable clients UK taxes for Private Client HMRC Manuals updates Charity and philanthropy Pensions, insurance and tax efficient investments Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland International Question of the week Additional Private Client updates this week Daily and weekly news alerts LexTalk®Private Client: a Lexis®PSL community New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Latest Q&A Useful information Court of Protection Best interests in a two P situation (Re MA & AA) Private Client analysis: In this matter, District Judge Simpson examined if a relocation, bringing the husband nearer to his wife, aligned with his best interests, and also whether ongoing contact between them served their best interests. Following a meticulous evaluation of each person’s welfare and preferences, the court decided that moving would not be in the husband’s best interests. In addition, while this position remains under periodic...

ARCHIVED: This tracker is archived and no longer updated. For an overview of Court of Protection cases from 2025 onwards, see: Court of Protection—table of cases. P, Re (Property & Affairs Deputyship: Jurisdiction) [2024] EWCOP 77 (T2) Court of Protection determines it has jurisdiction to consider whether P’s mother should continue as property and affairs deputy The proceedings related to P, an adult who sustained a brain injury in an accident and had a substantial personal injury claim. His mother had been appointed by the Court of Protection as his property and affairs deputy, and the present decision addressed an application seeking to revoke that appointment. The litigation had been protracted. Earlier, the court permitted ‘closed material’ to be withheld from P’s parents to facilitate capacity assessments; for a summary of that ruling, see here. Despite that step, neither the Official Solicitor nor the court gained clarity about P’s condition or even his location. It was reported that P was now residing in Italy. HHJ Burrows concluded that...

Introduction This Practice Note summarises key aspects of English insurance law, how they relate specifically to yachts, and the developments introduced on commencement of the Insurance Act 2015 (IA 2015). For fuller guidance on the fundamental rules that underpin any insurance contract, see Practice Note: General principles of insurance contract law. For an outline of marine insurance across all categories of vessel, see Practice Note: Marine insurance—general principles. The relevant legislation The Marine Insurance Act 1906 (MIA 1906) continues to govern questions of yachting insurance, but its provisions have been revised and built upon by the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012 (CI(DR)A 2012) and the IA 2015. Smaller yachts and pleasure craft, usually owned by individuals, will typically come within CI(DR)A 2012, which safeguards consumer insureds by substituting the duty of utmost good faith with an obligation to take reasonable care not to misrepresent the risk. For superyachts owned by corporate bodies—who, not being individuals, are not classed as consumers—the IA 2015 will apply. ...

Insurance contracts have long seemed enigmatic to law students and practising lawyers. The reason is that they are contracts of the utmost good faith. They are unlike ordinary agreements: they must be treated with exceptional care. The central element of the obligation of utmost good faith, as articulated in the Marine Insurance Act 1906 (MIA 1906), is the policyholder’s duty to volunteer information to the insurer that would ‘influence the judgment of a prudent insurer’ when deciding whether to accept the risk and what to charge for it (see: MIA 1906, s 18). This has always been a demanding requirement. In truth, it has long been a tall order. It expects the policyholder to second‑guess the insurer’s thinking and make disclosure on that basis. The insurer, by contrast, was free to sit back and remain passive, under no obligation to offer the policyholder any hints or prompts. It was straightforward for the policyholder to breach this duty, with severe consequences: any material non‑disclosure (honest, innocent, careless or otherwise) entitled the...

This Precedent This Precedent is intended for collecting customer information and feedback to assess how effective a process is, forming part of step 1 of the five‑step improving efficiency framework—see Practice Notes: Improving efficiency: The five steps framework and Improving efficiency: Step 1—identify and define the problem. All process enhancements should be focused on improving the experience of the internal/external client, and achieving that requires understanding what they need or expect from you. In continuous improvement (CI) terms, this is known as capturing the ‘Voice of the Customer/Client’ (VOC)...

This Precedent offers a worked illustration of Precedent: Improving efficiency—Voice of the Customer/Client (VOC)—blank and shows how client input can be applied to assess process effectiveness. Any change initiative ought to centre on enhancing the internal and external client experience, which first requires clarity on their needs and expectations. Within continuous improvement (CI), this is described as capturing the ‘Voice of the Customer/Client’ (VOC). That VOC must be weighed against what your team can and is prepared to deliver—the ‘Voice of the Business’ (VOB). This example is tailored to practitioners within an in-house legal function. What do our clients want? Step 1: Identify our clients Who are our current clients? (specific and generic) Internal clients—procurement team, HR, etc. External clients—suppliers. Who are our prospective clients? Could we feasibly supply legal or consultancy support externally to generate revenue? Untapped markets to pursue? Other niche organisations within a comparable market sector. Is our client...