Distress meaning

Checklist This checklist sets out the matters a practitioner ought to weigh when assessing general damages. It reviews various heads of damage, such as pain, suffering and loss of amenity (PSLA), Smith v Manchester awards, loss of congenial employment, loss of use, holiday disruption, harm to relationships, reduced marriage prospects, aggravated damages, unnecessary treatment, fatal accidents, and interest. PSLA Pain and suffering reflect the claimant’s personal, subjective experience. Loss of amenity denotes a diminished capacity to carry out ordinary activities. Damages can be granted for physical and/or psychiatric injury and cover distress in the past, present, and future. There is no precise formula for valuation in these assessments of such claims...

Checklist: reporting restriction orders in family proceedings This checklist sets out the steps to consider when applying for a reporting restriction order in family proceedings, including preliminary matters such as jurisdiction, any alternative statutory provision and grounds for exclusion. It explains notifying the media through the Press Association Injunction Applications Alert Service, and notifying other parties. It also covers the duration and scope of reporting restriction orders under the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, the Practice Note (Official Solicitor: Deputy Director of Legal Services: Cafcass: Applications for reporting restriction orders) (also known as the Cafcass Practice Note), and the reporting restriction order standard order. A reporting restriction order is a court order restricting the publication or dissemination of certain information by media representatives or duly authorised lawyers about court proceedings. Its primary purpose is to protect the identities of those involved in the proceedings, such as children or incapacitated adults, where publication could cause harm, distress or a breach of privacy. ...

This Checklist outlines the principal risks and points to weigh when taking steps to build a resilient supply chain, covering demand, communication, mapping, supplier requirements, contingency plans, supplier agreements, supplier distress and insolvency, fraud, and de‑risking. It accompanies Practice Note: Securing a resilient supply chain. Demand In relation to demand, have you: Evaluated the possible effects of a major supply chain event (eg geopolitical instability, a pandemic, or product shortages) on your customers/end users? Considered how a significant supply chain event could influence your distribution network and adjusted it as necessary? Assessed whether investing in technology (eg AI, digital twins, crisis and scenario modelling) could deliver solutions to sharp changes in supply and demand? Communication In relation to communication, have you: Kept strong, regular dialogue with key suppliers, logistics partners and end customers about what you are doing and the steps you are taking? ...

In this issue: Advertising, marketing and sponsorship Consumer protection Contracts Data protection E-commerce International Public procurement Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Latest Q&A Advertising, marketing and sponsorship ASA rulings—21 August 2024 One complaint was lodged with the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) about a sponsored Facebook post by Just Eat.co.uk Ltd t/a Just-Eat.co.uk that featured McDonald’s products high in fat, salt or sugar (HFSS), querying whether the ad had been directed at children. The ASA upheld the complaint. See: LNB News 21/08/2024 11. CMA accepts Meta's updated ad data use rules The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has accepted Meta’s updated commitments on the use of advertising data. Following the CMA’s May 2024 consultation on Meta’s varied commitments regarding its ad data practices, Meta will introduce a new model ensuring all advertisers can use Facebook Marketplace without their data being used...

According to the Department for Business and Trade, a former Insolvency Service employee, who remains anonymous, supplied The Times, the Financial Times and Sky News in November 2023 with confidential details about the agency’s plan to seek director disqualification against Greensill. The government’s High Court defence, dated 29 April 2024 and now public, asserts this constituted unlawful processing of the Australian businessman’s personal data under the UK GDPR, together with a breach of confidence and misuse of private information. However, the government rejected the contention that the disclosures caused Greensill “significant anxiety and distress”. By then, the department argued, the ex-Citigroup and Morgan Stanley banker’s standing as a businessman was “already significantly, if not irreparably, damaged”. Greensill issued proceedings against the government in March 2024, seeking damages and compensation, contending that the Insolvency Service’s investigation was “an obviously confidential and private process”. He alleges the staff member, referred to only as X, infringed his privacy by tipping off the media about the scope and key areas of focus in the...

Restructuring & Insolvency weekly highlights—27 November 2025 In this issue: Key R&I law developments Insolvency litigation Restructuring Directors and insolvency The office-holder Financial institutions R&I in Scotland Daily and weekly news alerts Key dates for restructuring and insolvency professionals New content New Q&As Key R&I law developments Budget 2025—key Restructuring & Insolvency announcements On 26 November 2025, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, set out measures of note for restructuring and insolvency practitioners. Plans cover business rates changes, hiring extra Insolvency Service staff to combat abusive phoenixism and rogue directors, the creation of the Public Authorities Fraud Investigation and Enforcement Service, and adjustments to National Insurance Contributions. See: LNB News 26/11/2025 65. Council of the EU agrees directive harmonising insolvency law across member states Negotiators for the Council of the EU and the European Parliament have reached a provisional deal on a directive aligning...

General duties of directors The Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) sets out many, though not every, obligations placed upon directors under case law and principles of equity...

Practice Note for UK defined benefit (DB) occupational pension schemes This Practice Note is archived and is not maintained. It reviews the Pensions Regulator’s approach to funding defined benefit pension schemes for valuations with an effective date before 22 September 2024, in line with the Code of Practice on funding defined benefits dated 29 July 2014, alongside the relevant annual funding statements. It also summarises the Pensions Regulator’s approach prior to July 2014. For information on the Pensions Regulator’s approach for scheme valuations with an effective date on or after 22 September 2024, see Practice Notes: DB pensions funding reforms 2024 and The scheme-specific funding regime. When considering scheme funding issues, trustees and employers should take into account the Pensions Regulator’s approach to funding defined benefits (DB benefits). How would the Pension Regulator communicate its approach to DB scheme funding? The Pensions Regulator’s position in relation to DB scheme funding was mainly conveyed through the following documents: a code of practice on funding defined...

This archived tracker recorded significant developments, legislation, guidance and briefing notes concerning the coronavirus (COVID-19) response, concentrating on updates pertinent to local government governance up to 18 July 2021, when legal restrictions were finally lifted. This Practice Note is archived and is not maintained. For details contained in earlier archived trackers, see: Coronavirus (COVID-19)—governance tracker Summer 2020 [Archived] and Coronavirus (COVID-19)—governance tracker Spring 2020 [Archived]. Select the links below to go straight to the relevant section: Primary legislation National restrictions Local restrictions Travel restrictions Local authority governance Financial support Government guidance Other sources of information News Analysis Case Law Primary legislation Development Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 — legislation addressing companies in financial distress and adjustments to company regulation. When in force Partly in force from 26 June 2020, and fully on such day as the Secretary of State may appoint by regulations. Find out more...

[ Insert in para 8.2 of claim form ET1: ] The Respondent engaged the Claimant as a [ job title ]. She was based at the Respondent’s premises at [ insert address ], where she was one of only three women employed. [ It was an implied term of the Claimant’s employment contract that the Respondent would not behave in a way calculated or likely to erode the mutual trust and confidence between employer and employee. ] The Claimant contends that the Respondent subjected her to [ a course of ] discrimination, sex-related harassment, harassment of a sexual nature, and victimisation, which encompassed discriminatory and constructive unfair dismissal. On or around [ insert date ], her colleague, [ insert name ], asked her to send him certain sales reports. She informed [ insert name ] that she was in the process of compiling the figures and would supply the full report after lunch. He replied, ‘No need to bite my head off. Is it that...

This Agreement is dated [ insert day and month ] 20[ insert year ] Parties The Consenting Lenders (as set out in Schedule 1); [ The Consenting Bondholders (as set out in Schedule 2); ] [ insert name of debtor company ], a company registered in [ insert country eg England and Wales ] with company number [ insert registered number ], whose registered office is at [ insert address ]; [ The Material Companies (as set out in Schedule 3); ] Recitals On [ insert date ], the directors of the Company announced a proposal to restructure the claims of certain creditors of the [ Company OR Group ] following a period of financial distress. On [ insert date ], the Company and certain creditors entered into a Standstill Agreement in connection with the proposed restructuring. [ On [ insert date ], the Company and certain creditors agreed non-binding heads of terms for the...

1 Management and organisational information security ICO expectation and current status Further details: LexisNexis® Precedents Your business identifies, evaluates and controls information security risks Not yet implemented or planned Partially implemented or planned Successfully implemented Not applicable Before deciding the right level of protection for your organisation, audit the personal data you hold and gauge the threats to it. Review every stage of handling: collection, storage, use, sharing and disposal. Weigh the sensitivity or confidentiality of the data and the potential harm or distress to people, alongside any reputational impact on your business, if a breach occurred. With this understanding, select security controls proportionate to your needs. Embedding data protection by design also means undertaking a data protection impact assessment (DPIA) in defined scenarios to evaluate privacy risks. You must complete a DPIA prior to initiating any processing that is ‘likely to result in a high risk’...

In this Q&A, we assume that B’s claim is smaller than A’s. Legal process against the company Under paragraph 43(2) of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), the moratorium prevents any legal process—covering legal proceedings, execution, distress and diligence—from being started or continued against the company or its property without the administrator’s consent or the court’s permission. This wording is wide enough to encompass any remaining actions or steps that might otherwise be taken against the company or its property. Accordingly, B can only bring an action against A with the approval of the administrator or the leave of the court. The purpose of the moratorium (and the interim moratorium) is to safeguard the company and its assets from creditor action during the company’s administration and the pre-appointment period. It bars any steps, actions or processes from being begun or carried on against the company and its property, save with the administrator’s consent (if one is appointed) or the court’s permission. See Practice...

This Q&A This Q&A explores the steps administrators should take to contest a landlord’s attempt to forfeit a lease by peaceable re-entry, carried out unaware of an interim moratorium triggered by lodging a notice of intention to appoint administrators (NOI). An NOI is to be lodged by the directors or the company in advance of making an out of court appointment pursuant to Schedule B1, paragraph 22, of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986). This Q&A does not address a case where no NOI has been lodged. Where a company or its directors intend to appoint an administrator via the out of court route, they begin by filing an NOI, which imposes an interim moratorium under IA 1986, Sch B1, paras 44(2), 44(4). After the NOI is placed before the court, notice must also be served on the ‘prescribed persons’, including any party known to have levied distress against the company or its assets (Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016, SI 2016/1024, r 3.23(4); IA 1986, Sch B1, para...

It is assumed that the landlord has instituted proceedings to forfeit the lease due to non-payment of rent. Given the claim has succeeded, it is further assumed the lease contained a clause authorising re-entry upon non-payment of rent, and that either the arrears were duly demanded or section 210 of the Common Law Procedure Act 1852 applies, with at least six months’ rent outstanding and insufficient distress available on the premises to satisfy the arrears, in which situation any demand is dispensed with. There is likewise no requirement to serve a notice under section 146 of the Law of Property Act 1925 where the breach relied upon is non-payment of rent. In matters of forfeiture for non-payment of rent, as in this instance, relief is exercised under the equitable jurisdiction of the courts, and any relief is considered, granted or refused strictly within that jurisdiction and on equitable principles alone...