Counterclaim (Scotland) meaning

In this issue: Business tenancies Disputes and remedies Property Disputes in Scotland LexTalk®Property Disputes: a Lexis®Nexis community Additional Property disputes updates Daily and weekly news alerts Dates for your diary New and updated content Trackers Latest Q&A Business tenancies Competing approaches to a tenant’s ‘holding’ in claims for renewal of business tenancies (Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd v Medley Assets Ltd) In Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd v Medley Assets Ltd [2024] Lexis Citation 358, a contested application to renew a business tenancy under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954) was examined. The landlord relied on ground (f), asserting a reasonable need to recover possession to undertake substantial works. A key ancillary question concerned the scope of the tenant’s ‘holding’, hinging on how that term is construed in LTA 1954, s 30, and whether it aligns with or differs from ‘holding’ in LTA 1954, s 32 (the property to be included in any new tenancy)....

In this issue: Probate Trusts Court of Protection Elderly and vulnerable clients UK taxes for Private Client Tax avoidance, evasion and non-compliance Contentious trusts and estates 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+® community New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Latest Q&A Useful information Probate High Court upholds the will and dismisses the counterclaim due to laches and lack of merit (Stephenson (as Executors and Beneficiaries of the estate of Malcom Roocroft (deceased)) v Daley) The Chancery Division granted the claimants probate in solemn form of the deceased’s final will, and rejected the defendants’ counterclaim which aimed to set the will aside for want of knowledge and approval. The court concluded the deceased understood and endorsed the...

In this issue: Enfranchisement and right to manage Disputes and remedies Repairing obligations and dilapidations Residential tenancies Property Disputes in Scotland Additional Property Disputes updates LexTalk®Property Disputes: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Latest Q&As Enfranchisement and right to manage FTT’s approach to property valuation principles in lease extension upheld (Deritend Investments (Birkdale) v Fung Tai Engineering Company)) In Deritend Investments (Birkdale) v Fung Tai Engineering Company) [2025] UKUT 324 (LC), the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) (UT) rejected an appeal from the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (FTT) concerning the premium set for extending a leasehold interest in a Hyde Park flat with 54.71 years remaining. Permission to appeal had been granted because it was arguable the FTT had misapplied accepted valuation practice or misunderstood the evidence, with particular focus on the Freehold Vacant Possession Value. The UT proceeded by reviewing the FTT’s determination...

Practice Note This Practice Note consists of two strands created to help dispute resolution practitioners remain up to date with developments in case law that affect their field, or which influence civil litigation procedure more generally: selected forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court are highlighted below; see Key forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court—2022 summaries of significant appeal decisions in England and Wales (ie rulings of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court and, where appropriate, certain judgments of the Competition Appeal Tribunal, Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, Court of Justice of the European Union), and ECtHR, which we have covered; see: Key forthcoming appeal cases—2022 You can navigate this content using the table of contents in the left-hand margin. Alternatively, search this tracker using [CTRL]+[F]. This material is not intended to be a comprehensive register of every appeal or major decision relevant to dispute resolution practitioners. Key forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court—2022 Tort and negligence ...

This Practice Note explains the requirements for responding to an employment tribunal claim (ie defending a claim). If the claim, or any part of it, is accepted (see Practice Note: Submission of a claim to the employment tribunal), the tribunal must provide each respondent with: a copy of the claim form; and a notice setting out: whether any part of the claim has been rejected; and how to submit a response to the claim, the deadline by which the tribunal must receive it, and the consequences if the tribunal does not receive a response within that period. A tribunal may send a copy of the claim form to a respondent at an address different from the one stated on the claim form itself. Respondents must present their response form (known as an ET3) to the employment tribunal in accordance with any relevant practice direction...

For various reasons, a claimant or respondent may want or need to: amend the contents of their ET1 claim form, ET3 response form or a reply (to an employer’s counterclaim) after the original has been lodged with the tribunal; and/or add information to that already in the claim, response or reply (each commonly called a ‘pleading’) to elaborate on the pleading (often termed ‘further and better particulars’) In broad terms, when an employment tribunal decides whether to permit an amendment to a pleading, it should: identify, in writing, the amendment or amendments sought; and expressly balance the injustice and/or hardship of allowing or refusing the amendment(s), taking into account all relevant factors, including, as appropriate, those mentioned in the case of Selkent (as described in detail below) The current Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 (ET Rules 2024), SI 2024/1155 (and preceding ET Rules) departed from earlier versions of the rules, in that they make no express...