Contingent claim meaning

Flowchart This Flowchart outlines the prerequisites that need to be met to prove a fraudulent trading claim...

In this issue: Brexit headlines Constitutional and administrative law Equality and human rights Judicial review Public procurement Subsidy control and State aid Information law Other Public Law news Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Brexit headlines Court of Appeal restricts education-based residence right under UK-EU Withdrawal Agreement—R (Ayoola) v Home Secretary In R (Ayoola) v SSHD [2025] EWCA Civ 1519, the Court of Appeal held that Articles 24(2) and 25(2) of the Withdrawal Agreement do not confer fresh residence entitlements; they merely safeguard education‑linked derivative residence rights that existed before withdrawal from the EU. Specifically, children of EU nationals had residence rights under Article 12 of Regulation 1612/68 (later Article 10 of Regulation 492/2011). Their third‑country national parents held residence rights only where their presence was required for the child. CJEU case law acknowledged and reinforced those derivative entitlements. Nonetheless,...

What are tihe practical implications of the case? This ruling firmly reaffirms the UAE courts’ pro‑arbitration approach and sets out clear, practical pointers for those in construction and arbitration. Article 8(1) will be enforced strictly. A prompt jurisdictional challenge grounded in an arbitration agreement will usually prevail unless that agreement is null, void, or incapable of performance. Non‑signatory tactics will be closely examined. The court looks to the real legal and factual matrix, not the pleaded cause. If the entitlement arises from subcontract works, recasting it via employer acknowledgements will not bypass the arbitration clause unless those documents create a genuinely independent, unconditional duty to pay. Conditional guarantees and comfort letters may not trigger direct liability. Where payment undertakings are contingent on the main contractor’s non‑payment or tied to the main contract/subcontract machinery, they are unlikely to found a standalone claim against the employer. The decision reinforces the sequencing principle in construction disputes: resolve the subcontract account first, in the agreed forum, before...

In this issue: Probate Court of Protection HMRC Manuals updates Tax avoidance, evasion and non-compliance Regulatory compliance for Private Client Budgets and Finance Bills Insolvency—Private Client Contentious trusts and estates Pensions, insurance and tax efficient investments Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland International Question of the week Daily and weekly news alerts LexTalk®Private Client: a Lexis+® community New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Latest Q&As Useful information Probate Bona Vacantia Division reinstates unclaimed estates list following fraud review Working with the Government Legal Department, the Bona Vacantia Division (BVD) has confirmed the restoration of the Bona Vacantia unclaimed estates list following a review of its release. Publication had been paused in July 2025 owing to allegations of fraud in the probate system. The review found no evidence that the unclaimed estates list was connected to fraudulent activity. Even so, BVD has judged...

Variation of Will or intestacy after death—Q&As An instrument of variation can be used to alter how a deceased person’s estate is distributed under a Will or on intestacy. It is commonly executed by deed. To secure effectiveness—typically to obtain favourable inheritance tax (IHT) and capital gains tax (CGT) treatment under section 142 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (IHTA 1984) and section 62(6) of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 (TCGA 1992)—certain formalities must be met. These include that the deed is in writing, contains the requisite statement applying the statutory provisions, is not made for any extraneous consideration, and is signed by all relevant parties, including the deceased’s personal representatives (PRs) where additional tax would otherwise arise. For guidance on deeds of variation, see Practice Note: Variation of Will or intestacy after death. See also Practice Note: Post-death rearrangements. Compliance with these requirements will usually deliver the intended IHT and CGT position. The formalities for execution of variation should be followed accordingly. Precedent deed of variation...

This Practice Note considers directions questionnaires for civil claims that are issued on or after 1 October 2023 (except personal injury claims). It explains the timing and process for preparing, lodging and serving the directions questionnaire, as well as the repercussions if one is not filed. Directions questionnaires use Form N180 or N181, selected according to the case management track to which the claim is assigned. The rules governing directions questionnaires differ, contingent on whether the proceedings were issued before or after 1 October 2023. This Practice Note addresses directions questionnaires for civil claims brought on or after 1 October 2023. For guidance on directions questionnaires in civil claims begun before 1 October 2023, see Practice Note: Directions questionnaires—position before 1 October 2023. Do note, however, that for personal injury claims the applicable rules hinge on when the cause of action accrues, and for disease claims on when the first letter of claim has been sent. For such claims, the provisions described in this Practice Note apply solely and...

ARCHIVED This archived Practice Note is not being maintained and is supplied for background purposes only. It covers the original Coronavirus (COVID-19) Job Retention Scheme (CJRS), first unveiled by the government on 20 March 2020, which applied from 1 March to 30 June 2020. For information on: the extended CJRS operating between 1 May and 30 September 2021, see Practice Note: Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (extended version 1 May to 30 September 2021) [Archived] the extended CJRS in effect from 1 November 2020 to 30 April 2021, see Practice Note: Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (extended version 1 November 2020 to 30 April 2021) [Archived] the revised CJRS running from 1 July to 31 October 2020, see Practice Note: Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (extended version 1 July to 31 October 2020) [Archived] The CJRS was a temporary initiative, originally intended to run for three months from 1 March 2020. On 17 April 2020, HM Treasury announced an extension to 30 June,...

Claim no: [ insert claim number ] In the county court at [ insert ] Between [ INSERT CLAIMANT’S NAME ] Claimant -and- [ INSERT FIRST DEFENDANT’S NAME ] First Defendant -and- Motor Insurers’ Bureau Second Defendant Particulars of claim [ Insert introductory wording if relevant, for example: The Claimant is [ insert details ] ] At all relevant times: The Claimant was [ insert details, for example the driver of ] The First Defendant was the driver of [ insert details, for example registration number ] The Second Defendant is joined to these proceedings for the reasons set out further below...

IN THE [ INSERT NAME OF COURT ] Claim no. Parties AB Claimant and (1) C D First Defendant (2) MOTOR INSURERS’ BUREAU (acting through its agent X Y INSURANCE PLC) Second Defendants PARTICULARS OF CLAIM Throughout the material period, the First Defendant drove a vehicle [ insert description ], [ insert registration ] (“the vehicle”), whilst the Claimant was travelling as a passenger therein. The Second Defendant (the “MIB”) is a company limited by guarantee within the Companies’ Acts. Under an Agreement with the Secretary of State dated 3 July 2015 (the “Agreement”), MIB provides compensation, in specified circumstances, to persons who suffer injury or damage arising from the negligence of an uninsured motorist. The Claimant has taken all reasonable steps to identify the insurer and any liability in respect of the First Defendant and, as at the commencement of these proceedings, believes the First Defendant was not insured to drive the said vehicle at the relevant...

Personal representatives (PRs) of an estate bear personal responsibility, limited to the estate’s value, for debts arising from the deceased. This responsibility extends to contingent obligations as well, even where no demand or claim has as yet been submitted...

Insolvency Rules 2016 (IR 2016), SI 2016/1024, Part 14 Part 14 of the Insolvency Rules 2016 (SI 2016/1024), which sets out how creditors’ claims are dealt with, also operates in a members’ voluntary liquidation (MVL) by reason of r 14.1(1). That rule confirms that this Part applies to administration, winding up and bankruptcy proceedings, without any restriction confining its operation to insolvent liquidations. What amounts to a provable debt in a winding up (and equally in administration and bankruptcy) is defined by r 14.2(1). Save as otherwise provided in that rule, every creditor’s claim is provable as a debt against the company or the bankrupt, whether the liability is present or future, certain or contingent, ascertained or recoverable only in damages. For further guidance, see Practice Note: Future debts, contingent debts, secured debts...

Can the respondent refuse to agree the stay unless the applicant pays the costs incurred by the respondent? What factors will the Tribunal consider in deciding whether or not to agree the stay? The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) is a statutory creation, with authority derived from the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (TCEA 2007), which established it, and the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, SI 2013/1169 (the Property Chamber Rules). Importantly, the decision to impose a stay does not rest with the parties. That is a defined case management power conferred on the FTT by the Property Chamber Rules (SI 2013/1169, r 6(3)(m)). When exercising its powers, the Tribunal must give effect to the overriding objective, requiring cases to be handled fairly and justly (SI 2013/1169, r 3(1) and (3)). Consequently, a respondent cannot make agreement to a stay contingent upon the applicant meeting the respondent’s costs; whether a stay should be granted is a matter for the FTT to decide in line with its...