Defendant meaning

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...

Under section 14 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002), the court will ordinarily impose a confiscation order before passing sentence on the defendant, yet it can defer the confiscation proceedings for a defined period of up to two years from the date of conviction-see Practice Note: Postponement of confiscation proceedings. If proceedings are postponed, the court will typically direct a timetable for the exchange of material required by POCA 2002 (frequently referred to as the confiscation timetable). The outline below identifies the documents exchanged for these purposes, the point at which they are required, and key points for practitioners to bear in mind when reviewing them. Document: Required where: Commentary Information by defendant in response to an order under POCA 2002, s 18 Where the court proceeds to make a confiscation order under POCA 2002, s 6(3)(a) (the prosecutor seeks an order) or POCA 2002, s 6(3)(b) (the court considers it proper to make an order), or where the court is deciding whether to...

ARCHIVED: This checklist is kept for historical reference only. It sets out Part 36 of the CPR as it applied before 6 April 2015. Where you have received a Part 36 offer on or from 6 April 2015, you should consult CPR 36 in force and our Practice Notes, Checklists and Precedents dealing with this, see: Part 36 offers—overview. If you are in receipt of a Part 36 offer that pre-dates 6 April 2015, then the version of the Part 36 rules that was in force before that date applies...

This flowchart outlines the method for assessing whether or not a defendant possesses a criminal lifestyle, for the purposes of confiscation proceedings pursuant to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002...

This Checklist This checklist sets out key questions and considerations for local authority officers to weigh when defining the scope and content of a criminal investigation into a suspected criminal offence. What offence(s) are under investigation? Examine the statute and determine: the elements of the offence; and who may commit the offence What is the legal status of a potential defendant(s)? Is the potential defendant: a registered company? an LLP? a partnership? a sole trader? an unincorporated association? an individual?...

Contributory negligence When the defendant holds primary responsibility for the incident, they may assert that the other party contributed to it. The matters to assess are: which parties were to blame for the incident, and to what extent? in what proportion should damages be allocated, having regard to the comparative responsibilities of those at fault?...

Bayerische Landesbank and another v Ruschemalliance LLC [2024] EWHC 1822 (Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? In keeping with comparable determinations, this judgment succinctly sets out the jurisdictional thresholds and principal considerations the court applies when evaluating applications for anti‑suit injunctions. It underscores the judiciary’s practical bent and operates as a constructive illustration of inter‑court co‑ordination, projecting a clear signal where numerous contests flow from identical underlying events, even though such matters are dealt with at varying moments and tiers of the court structure. In sum, the outcome reasserts the English courts’ steadfast commitment to upholding arbitration, including in circumstances where the arbitral seat is situated in a foreign state. What was the background? In 2021, the defendant, Ruschemalliance LLC (“RCA”), a Russian entity, entered into two Engineering, Procurement and Construction agreements for the development of liquefied natural gas and gas processing plant facilities in Russia. The obligations owed by RCA’s counterparties, the German companies Linde GmbH and Renaissance Heavy Industries LLC (together,...

Oswin v Otila; and Ondray Claim No ARB 032/2025 What was the background? This matter arose from a falling-out between Oswin (the Claimant) and Ondray (the Second Defendant) over how to run their joint venture company, Otila (the First Defendant). Oswin owned 49% of the First Defendant’s shares and Ondray 51%. The board could act only by unanimous vote, while shareholder resolutions required a 75% super-majority. When they were unable to agree on management and operations, the company became deadlocked. Their relationship was governed by a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) dated 12 March 2019, which included an arbitration clause calling for DIFC-seated proceedings under the DIFC-LCIA Rules. The Claimant also operated a medical and hazardous waste facility under an Operations and Management Agreement due to expire on 21 August 2025. On 15 August 2025, the Claimant issued a Dispute Notice under clause 21.2 of the JVA, alleging that the Second Defendant was assuming strategic decision-making without proper authority—covering directions on renewal of the O&M Agreement, instruction of external...

Johnstone v Fawcett’s Garage (Newbury) Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 467 What are the practical implications of this case? The key consequence of the ruling is the Court of Appeal’s categorical and wholesale dismissal of the ‘absolute risk approach’, put forward by the defendant in this case on the strength of obiter support from the High Court in Bannister v Freemans Public Ltd Company [2020] EWHC 1256 (QB). As a consequence of the Court of Appeal’s decision in this case, those obiter remarks in Bannister should no longer be regarded as representing good law, or treated as authoritative. The judgment further confirms that it was open to the trial judge in this case to employ a ‘direct risk assessment’ to calculate the increase in the risk of a person developing mesothelioma, and that doing so was permissible on the facts. It does not, however, set a general principle that this technique is valid or appropriate in all comparable matters involving low doses of exposure, although the court’s acceptance of...

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...

Proving the identity of the driver Where the bench is satisfied the defendant was served with a notice under section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, and the court receives a statement from the defendant admitting they were the driver, that statement is accepted as proof of identity. If no such admission exists—either because a RTA 1988, s 172 notice was not properly served in line with the Criminal Procedure Rules 2025 (CrimPR 2025), SI 2025/909, Pt 4, or the allegation is not one to which section 172 applies—the magistrates will look to other material. Information provided by the registered keeper to police during interview or questioning Entries held on the police national database See: Creed v Scott [1976] RTR 485 (not reported by LexisNexis®) and DPP v Bayliff [2003] EWHC 539 (Admin) (not reported by LexisNexis®). Details supplied to the police may suffice to prove who was driving; it is immaterial whether a driving licence is produced to confirm name...

This Practice Note centres on appeals against conviction, sentence, and related orders pursued in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division (CACD) under the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (CAA 1968), and in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Rules 2025 (CrimPR 2025), SI 2025/909, Parts 36 and 39. It also considers applications advanced by the Attorney General under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972 (CJA 1972) or section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (CJA 1988). It outlines how an appeal is commenced, namely by lodging an application for leave to appeal directly with the Court of Appeal. For further information on obtaining certificates declaring a case fit for appeal from the Crown Court, see Practice Note: Criminal appeals—certificates of fitness to appeal from the Crown Court. For detailed guidance on progressing an appeal in the CACD, see Practice Note: Conducting an appeal in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division (CACD). When can an appeal be made to the Court of Appeal? An appeal to the CACD...

Variations can also push back the completion date, and may give the Claimant a right to extra time and to prolongation costs. These elements of a variation claim are commonly pursued separately, as an extension of time claim and a prolongation costs claim. By way of illustration, the principal JCT forms provide distinct procedures: one for pricing the changed work, and another for evaluating loss and expense arising from the variation’s effect on the progress of the works (see Practice Note: JCT contracts—variations — Valuing variations under JCT contracts). Accordingly, Claimants should take care not to ‘double dip’ across the separate elements of the claims. No. Description of Variation Claimant’s case Defendant’s response Judge/Tribunal comments The Claimant intended to adopt slab foundations for block A, as depicted on the Claimant’s drawing reference XX dated XX. By email dated XX, the Defendant directed the use of piled foundations for block A...

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES, KINGS’S BENCH DIVISION, COMMERCIAL COURT before [ The Honourable Mr Justice OR The Honourable Mrs Justice ] [ insert name of judge ] (in private session) Claim No. [ insert claim number ] between: [ insert name(s) ] as Claimant(s)/Applicant(s) and [ insert name(s) ] as Defendant(s)/Respondent(s) [ The Claimant(s) and Defendant(s) in an Intended Action ] DRAFT FREEZING ORDER PENAL NOTICE If you, [ insert name of respondent(s) ], do not comply with this order, you risk being found in contempt of court and could face imprisonment, a fine, or confiscation of assets. Anyone else with knowledge of this order who assists or allows the Respondent to contravene it may likewise be found in contempt and be imprisoned, fined, or have their assets taken. 1 THIS ORDER 1.1 By order of Mrs/Mr Justice [ ] on [ ], this Freezing Injunction is granted against [ ] (‘the...

Before the [ insert name ] Magistrates' Court on [ insert date ] Defendant: [ insert name of the individual liable for the statutory nuisance OR, where appropriate, the owner of the premises from which the nuisance originates ] Address: [ insert address ] Matter of complaint That, on [ insert date ], a statutory nuisance, within meaning of Environmental Protection Act 1990, s 79(1) [ specify paragraph ], was present at [ specify the premises and its address ] and still persists now, and that [ name of person responsible for the statutory nuisance ] remains responsible for the statutory nuisance...

At the heart of the query lies the status of a party who does not adhere to a court direction, yet has lodged an application to extend the time for compliance before the expiry of the deadline attached to that direction. On the scenario set out, the claimant will be in breach of the court order concerning the exchange of witness statements in two weeks’ time, because that order will not have been varied before the deadline for compliance under that order...

HSC(CHS)A 2003, Part 3 For personal injury compensation claims where the incident occurred on or after 29 January 2007, Part 3 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 (HSC(CHS)A 2003) applies. The HSC(CHS)A 2003 extends to any matter involving foreign nationals and foreign compensators, in circumstances where NHS treatment and/or ambulance services were delivered to the injured person following their return to England, Scotland or Wales. Part 3 of the HSC(CHS)A 2003 permits recovery of the costs of treating an injured person in all situations where that individual has successfully pursued a personal injury claim against a third party. Under HSC(CHS)A 2003, s 150(3), a ‘compensation payment’ is a payment, including one in money’s worth, made on behalf of a person who is, or is alleged to be, liable in respect of the injury. HSC(CHS)A 2003, s 150(3) further provides that relevant NHS charges are not included...

An unincorporated association is not a legal entity In principle, it lacks legal personality and therefore cannot bring or face proceedings in its own name; this was the stance in London Association for Protection of Trade v Greenlands Limited. The position was examined in detail in Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford v Broughton, a matter arising from a campaign by the Animal Liberation Front and related bodies. The conventional course is to seek a representation order, allowing a named member or office-holder to be joined as a party ‘on behalf of the members of the association’. Yet time pressures—particularly an approaching limitation deadline—may make obtaining such an order impracticable, prompting a prospective claimant to ask whether the association can be joined in its own name. As recorded in University of Oxford, there have been instances where the court has in fact made orders directly against an association. Several first‑instance rulings placed before the court show orders made against protest groups which have been...