Joint Protocol meaning

In this issue: Adjudication Building safety Arbitration Standard form contracts Litigation Procurement in Construction LexTalk®Construction: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Construction trackers Adjudication Existential challenges and adjudication jurisdiction—a TCC reality check (HTC v WLP) In High Tech Construction Ltd v WLP Trading and Marketing Ltd [2026] EWHC 152 (TCC), the TCC declined to grant summary enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision where the very existence of the contract under which the adjudicator was appointed was in dispute, alongside allegations of fraud. Relying on Pegram Shopfitters v Tally Weijl, the court observed that because the challenge went to formation, rather than misdescription of terms, any jurisdiction ruling by the adjudicator carried no interim authority. Enforcement would therefore be refused if WLP Trading and Marketing Ltd (WLP) had a respectable case that no underlying contract existed; the court considered there was a real prospect that the adjudicator had no...

Banking & Finance—June 2025 case round-up Waller-Edwards v One Savings Bank Plc [2025] UKSC 22 Undue influence—mixed non-commercial transactions—de minimis threshold—Etridge guidance In this appeal, the Supreme Court allowed the challenge unanimously, deciding that a creditor is placed on inquiry—that one party’s assent to the deal may have been procured through undue influence—whenever a non-commercial hybrid arrangement, on the face of it, features a more than de minimis (ie trivial) borrowing component that extinguishes the liabilities of only one co-borrower and so may not be to the other’s financial advantage. Joanne Wicks KC, barrister at Wilberforce Chambers, and Tricia Hemans, barrister at Falcon Chambers, consider the ruling’s implications in News Analysis: Supreme Court holds banks must follow the Etridge protocol where non-commercial hybrid transactions include a more than de minimis surety element (Waller-Edwards v One Savings Bank Plc). This reiterates the Etridge principle in the context of such arrangements, for banks and lenders...

Practice and procedure In this issue: Practice and procedure Private children Public children Court of Protection LexTalk®Family: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Updated content New legislation New Q&As Useful information Courts and tribunal opening times over Easter 2024 HM Courts and Tribunals Service has confirmed a temporary closure for the Easter period from 29 March to 1 April 2024, reopening on 2 April 2024. A small number of magistrates’ courts will sit on 30 March and 1 April 2024, restricted to remand hearings only. Monday hearings paused in the Royal Courts of Justice Family Division From 9 April 2024 until 30 April 2025, the Family Division of the High Court at the Royal Courts of Justice will not list hearings on Mondays. Cases already listed on Mondays will proceed as planned. Administrative support for the Family Division—including listing, court associates, ushers and general office functions—is provided by the...

Role of the Pensions Regulator Statutory objectives The Pensions Regulator’s core function is to meet the statutory objectives set out in section 5 of the Pensions Act 2004 (PeA 2004). These are: to safeguard the benefits due to, or on behalf of, members of occupational pension schemes to safeguard the benefits due to, or on behalf of, members of personal pension schemes who are: employees for whom there are 'direct payment arrangements' (defined below), and where the scheme is a stakeholder pension scheme, any other members to reduce the likelihood of circumstances that could lead to compensation from the Pension Protection Fund for defined benefit scheme funding, to minimise any adverse effect on an employer’s sustainable growth to maximise compliance with auto-enrolment duties (for further information on which, see Practice Note: Auto-enrolment—an introduction) to promote, and improve understanding of, the good administration of 'work-based pension schemes', namely: ...

This Practice Note This Practice Note sets out key points when appointing an expert under CPR 35 and the Guidance for the instruction of experts in civil claims. It emphasises choosing the right moment to engage an expert, with pointers on matters to weigh up, particularly where instruction is contemplated before issue of the claim form. It also offers practical help on preparing the letter of instruction and any supporting materials. It covers dealings with experts, including questions of privilege. When instructing experts you should have regard to: all pertinent CPR Rules and Practice Directions the Guidance for the instruction of experts in civil claims (“the Guidance”). See Practice Note: under the Guidance for the instruction of experts in civil claims the Practice Direction Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols, para 7, and any other protocol applicable to the claim type any other guidance relevant to their expertise This Practice Note proceeds on the basis that permission to adduce expert evidence...

This Practice Note offers practical guidance on Joint Committee Decision No 1/2023, which gives legal force to the Windsor Package. Accordingly, it addresses the application of EU regulation in Northern Ireland, protection of the EU and UK’s internal markets, the green lane for movement of goods between the UK and Northern Ireland, the movement of parcels, the requisite authorisations, as well as reporting obligations for the movement of goods. Introduction On 27 February 2023, the UK Prime Minister and the EU Commission President reached an agreement on the Northern Ireland Protocol, known as the ‘Windsor Package’. This was a political conclusion that required legal text to give it effect. That text has now been approved: on 24 March 2023 the Joint Committee adopted Decision No 1/2023. The Joint Committee consists of UK and EU representatives and is co-chaired at ministerial level by members of the EU Commission and the UK government. Empowered by Article 164(5)(d) of the Withdrawal Agreement, it may take decisions that amend the Agreement. Decision...

UNDER PARAGRAPH 64 OF SCHEDULE B1 TO THE INSOLVENCY ACT 1986 By virtue of paragraph 64 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), [ insert names of the administrators ] (the Joint Administrators), being the joint administrators of [ insert name of company ] (the Company), consent to the Directors of the Company (the Directors) exercising the powers described below as set out herein. This consent is provided strictly on the basis that the Joint Administrators have certified that the administration is reasonably likely to secure the rescue of the Company as a going concern for that sole purpose. The Joint Administrators are further reasonably satisfied that the Company has sufficient funding to meet essential key post-administration outgoings, including rent, employee salaries, utilities and suppliers, on a continuing, ongoing basis. Save as aforesaid, the Joint Administrators do not authorise the Directors to exercise any other powers at this time; however, they remain fully prepared to consider additional requests for further consents, if and when required, where...