Powered by Lexis+®
Jurisdiction(s):
United Kingdom
CASE STUDY

“Although cost was an important factor, our relationship with LexisNexis, their responsiveness, flexibility, and the integration available with other products were key factors.”

Irwin Mitchell

Access all documents on Disqualification clause

Disqualification clause meaning

Published by a LexisNexis Family expert
What does Disqualification clause mean?
In collaborative law practice, a disqualification clause is the provision in the participation (collaborative) agreement that requires the parties’ collaborative solicitors (and, where engaged, counsel) to cease to act if the collaborative process breaks down and court proceedings are commenced or threatened, so that each party must instruct new lawyers for any litigation. This is a descriptive contractual term, not defined in legislation or case law, and is used consistently across England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland (often also called a “withdrawal” or “cease to act” clause). It typically: - Triggers on issuing or intimating court applications or other adversarial steps. - Carves out limited exceptions, for example urgent protective applications (such as non‑molestation or interdict orders) or submitting a consent order/agreement to the court. - May apply to the individual lawyer or the whole firm/chambers, depending on the drafting and professional conduct rules. - Is signed by the parties and their collaborative lawyers as part of the participation agreement. Its practical purpose is to promote settlement-focused, without‑prejudice negotiations and full disclosure by removing the option of continuing with the same representatives in contested proceedings, managing costs and discouraging tactical litigation threats.
Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business–all whilst saving time and reducing risk.

View the related News about Disqualification clause

NEWS
Aroma v Aroma Espresso: Ontario Court of Appeal applies Halliburton, confirms Model Law objective test; no duty to disclose later appointment by opposing counsel; IBA Guidelines merely guidance

Aroma Franchise Company, Inc v Aroma Espresso Bar Canada Inc. 2024 ONCA 839 What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling confirms that, unless the parties stipulate otherwise in their arbitration clause, the Model Law’s objective yardstick governs both arbitrators’ disclosure duties and their potential disqualification in international arbitrations seated in Ontario. In the absence of express agreement to the contrary, that objective benchmark is the applicable test. As the Model Law is embedded in the international commercial arbitration statutes of every other Canadian province, and incorporated into the provisions of the Code of civil procedure of Québec, the judgment carries significance across Canada and will be relevant nationwide. The Court further determined that the application judge erred in relying on pre‑appointment communications between the parties to find a reasonable apprehension of bias, given those exchanges were never put before the arbitrator; it was inappropriate to draw such an inference from material unknown to the tribunal. Overall, the decision serves as a timely prompt to practitioners...

Read More Right Arrow

View the related Practice Notes about Disqualification clause

PRACTICE NOTES
Comprehensive glossary of UK restructuring and insolvency terms, covering Companies Act schemes, Part 26A plans, IA 1986 processes, and cross‑border concepts including COMI, UNCITRAL and assimilated EU rules.

This glossary sets out numerous expressions regularly encountered in the restructuring & insolvency sphere. Words shown in bold within definitions are themselves explained in other entries in this glossary as well. A Article X The MLIJ contains a single provision named Article X, aimed at jurisdictions that have already implemented the MLCBI, like England, or are weighing its adoption. Article X states: ‘Not withstanding any prior interpretation to the contrary, the relief available under [insert a cross-reference to the legislation of this State enacting Article 21 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency] includes recognition and enforcement of a judgment’ (see Practice Note: UNCITRAL model law on recognition and enforcement of insolvency-related judgments (MLIJ): Article X). Asset-backed security (ABS) A form of security anchored by asset pools, for example loans, leases, and credit card receivables. Assimilated law From 1 January 2024, ‘retained law’ has been retitled ‘assimilated law’. The body of domestic law originally arising from EU obligations, created by the European...

Read More Right Arrow
PRACTICE NOTES
Collaborative Family Law Features, Suitability, Solicitors’ Roles and Process to Consent Order (England and Wales)

This Practice Note outlines the key aspects of the collaborative process, the factors to consider when assessing its suitability, the responsibilities of collaborative solicitors, and the steps to follow at each stage of the process. Features Within the collaborative framework, each party appoints a collaborative lawyer and enters into a collaborative participation agreement. There are no adversarial court proceedings. The parties also sign a disqualification clause confirming that, if agreement cannot be reached and proceedings are issued, they will cease to use their current lawyers and instruct new representatives. the collaborative agreement records a promise to negotiate in good faith, with openness and transparency matters are typically addressed in face-to-face “four-way” meetings attended by both parties and their solicitors correspondence is ordinarily kept to a minimum The collaborative process is a holistic approach in which the parties and their lawyers may involve other collaboratively trained professionals — for example, a financial neutral adviser — leading, where appropriate, to a five-way...

Read More Right Arrow