in chambers meaning

Testamentary capacity Oliver v Oliver [2024] EWHC 2289 (Ch) – News Analysis: Will overturned for want of testamentary capacity and undue influence (Oliver v Oliver). This judgment is an uncommon instance of a successful attack on a professionally drafted Will for both incapacity and coercion, even where the court had a recording of the testator’s instructions and the GP had issued a supporting certificate. Despite those formalities, the court concluded the Will should be set aside on both grounds. Alexandra Rogers, managing associate at Foot Anstey LLP. Leonard v Leonard (by her litigation friend Sharon Thompsett) [2024] EWHC 321 (Ch) – News Analysis: High Court offers guidance on the test for testamentary capacity (Leonard v Leonard). The High Court examines and clarifies Banks v Goodfellow, and underscores the continuing importance of expert evidence in capacity disputes. It underscores how clinical and legal evaluations interact closely, effectively. George Vare, barrister at Serle Court Chambers. Wilkinson v Hicken [2023] EWHC 1983 (Ch) – News Analysis: Personality disorders...

Andrew Scott KC of Blackstone Chambers, counsel for BHP Andrew Scott KC said the planned appeal poses the issue of whether seeking anti‑suit relief in a foreign court, linked to proceedings in England, could amount to criminal contempt. Scott told the Court of Appeal that no English authority indicates that it could. BHP has lodged an appeal against a decision by Judge Adam Constable. In June 2025, sitting in the High Court, he held that BHP must confront allegations that it attempted to impede the municipalities’ access to justice in England by supporting proceedings in Brazil’s highest court that might frustrate compensation claims. The municipalities argue that BHP is in contempt of court for agreeing to finance a claim initiated by Ibram, a Brazilian mining association, before the South American country’s Federal Supreme Court in 2024...

Released on 24 April 2024, the initial review authored by Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers identifies where the seasoned silk thinks progress could be achieved in updating a disclosure regime designed nearly three decades ago. Fisher believes that engaging the defence and the prosecution at an earlier stage could deliver huge gains, and he expresses confidence about the potential of artificial intelligence (AI). Yet he cautions that, in sprawling, data-rich matters, no flawless answer is available. Importantly, Zoe Osborne of Steptoe International (UK) LLP observed that the exercise does not seem to press for sweeping reforms to the framework, changes that would require Parliamentary sign-off and would probably face fierce opposition. Instead, she remarked, piecemeal adjustments to what already exists are required. That, Osborne suggested, might amount to a squandered opportunity to confront the root problems and resolve them, opting instead to patch a handful of cracks in an already leaking dam at this stage...

Nasir v Zavarco Plc [2025] UKSC 5 Background The respondent, Zavarco, allotted a substantial block of shares to the appellant, Nasir. A quarrel followed over whether Nasir had to pay cash or could satisfy the price by transferring shares in a different company. Zavarco issued proceedings (the ‘2016 Claim’). The judge found for Zavarco, declaring that Nasir’s shares were unpaid and that, under Zavarco’s articles of association, the company could forfeit them. Zavarco then exercised that power and forfeited the shares. Under the articles, Nasir remained bound to pay for the shares, so Zavarco commenced a second action (the ‘2018 Claim’) to recover the consideration. That claim was dismissed: the chief master held that Zavarco’s cause of action in the second suit had merged into the judge’s earlier declarations and was thereby extinguished. In the chief master’s view, the prior judgment absorbed the claim, leaving nothing further to sue upon, and so the monetary demand could not proceed. Zavarco appealed. The appeal judge allowed it, concluding that while, in...

Ramsay principle—further developments Lexis+® UK Tax thanks Nigel Doran of Macfarlanes LLP for comments on an earlier draft of this Practice Note; nevertheless, the opinions expressed are those of Lexis+® UK Tax. The Note has since been reviewed and updated by Aparna Nathan, KC, Devereux Chambers. It examines themes arising from cases where the courts have deployed the Ramsay principle to adopt a realistic assessment of the facts. For an introductory overview of the Ramsay principle, see Practice Note: Ramsay as a guide to statutory construction. The way in which the courts have approached Ramsay where transactions comprise a sequence of steps intended to operate together to secure a particular tax outcome is addressed in Practice Note: Ramsay and composite transactions. This Practice Note considers further developments that have emerged as the courts have explored how that approach should be applied across varying circumstances...

The Swiss Rules of International Arbitration, updated on 1 June 2021 (the Swiss Rules), apply—unless the parties agree otherwise—to any arbitration begun on or after 1 June 2021 under an arbitration agreement referring either to the Swiss Rules or to the prior rules of chambers or organisations that joined the Swiss Rules or brought their proceedings within them. This Practice Note examines the appointment of the arbitral tribunal under the Swiss Rules. The provisions regulating constitution of the tribunal are, for the most part, consistent with those in most other widely used arbitration rules, though there are a handful of particularities. For guidance on the 2012 Swiss Rules, see: Swiss Rules arbitration—overview. This note highlights similarities and specific features when constituting tribunals, within the context of these Swiss Rules and notes areas of difference. Number of arbitrators Under the Swiss Rules, the parties may decide the size of the arbitral tribunal, either within their arbitration clause or subsequently. While that choice rests with the parties, the Arbitration Court...

The Swiss Rules of International Arbitration, updated on 1 June 2021 (the Swiss Rules), govern—unless the parties agree otherwise—any arbitration begun on or after 1 June 2021 on the basis of an arbitration agreement where the clause refers to the Swiss Rules, or to the former rules of chambers or organisations that adopted the Swiss Rules or placed their proceedings under them. For commentary on the 2012 Swiss Rules, see: Swiss Rules arbitration—overview. A recurring element of institutional arbitration frameworks, including the Swiss Rules, is the institution’s involvement in setting and administering arbitration costs. Under the Swiss Rules, though, arbitral tribunals enjoy broader powers on costs than under several other prominent institutional regimes, such as those of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA). This Practice Note addresses costs and security for costs under the Swiss Rules. A citation to the Swiss Arbitration Centre’s (the SAC’s) Guidelines for Arbitrators may assist on cost-related issues. Categories and determination of arbitration costs Under...

To: Singapore International Arbitration Centre28 Maxwell Road, 03–01 Maxwell Chambers SuitesBY [ SPECIFY MODE OF DELIVERY ]Singapore 069115 Attn: The Registrar With copy, including all attachments, to: [ Insert name and address of all Respondents ]BY [ SPECIFY MODE OF DELIVERY ] Dear [ Registrar of SIAC ], We enclose a Notice of Arbitration, now lodged with the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) in accordance with rule 3 of the SIAC Rules of Arbitration, 6th Edition, 2016 (SIAC Rules). A copy is being served on the Respondent(s) by the service method(s) indicated above. The service date is [ insert anticipated date of delivery ]. [ Pursuant to rule 3.1(k) of the SIAC Rules, we attach a local cheque for [ insert amount ], payable to the Singapore International Arbitration Centre, covering the required filing fee. OR Pursuant to rule 3.1(k) of the SIAC Rules, the sum of [ insert amount ], being the requisite filing fees, was remitted on [ insert date ]...

In partnership with Alexander Stewart of Hogarth Chambers If a limited liability partnership (LLP) becomes insolvent, the preferred view is that members’ entitlements to amounts due under their capital and current accounts are subordinated to the claims of external unsecured creditors. That said, it can be contended that members’ claims for advances or loans made to the LLP—despite being entered in their current accounts—stand on the same footing as those of external unsecured creditors. LLPs are established by the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000 (LLPA 2000). In several respects, including insolvency, LLPs are akin to limited companies rather than partnerships; see: Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) and insolvency—overview. Where an LLP is insolvent, it is terminated by voluntary or compulsory winding-up. The winding-up regime under the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) operates alongside LLPA 2000, s 14 and the Limited Liability Partnerships Regulations 2001 (LLPR 2001), SI 2001/1090, reg 5 and LLPR 2001, SI 2001/1090, Sch 3 (as amended)...