LIFT meaning

Step/action Time (days) Section/rule Where a bankrupt’s automatic discharge from bankruptcy has been suspended by an order under section 279(3) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), the bankrupt may apply to remove that suspension. This summary provides a checklist and timeline for applications seeking to lift a bankrupt’s suspension from discharge, setting out the stages from preparing the application for issue, through to the making of the order lifting the suspension, and the matters to address once the order is made... For further guidance on a bankrupt’s discharge, and any suspension of that discharge, see: Practice Note: Discharge from bankruptcy Practice Note: Applying to lift an order suspending discharge from bankruptcy Summary checklist and timeline for a suspension of automatic discharge from bankruptcy application 1.

The moratorium in administration Central to administration, the moratorium operates as the principal device that enables a company rescue, a restructuring, or the disposal of the business. Its objective is to afford the company and its administrator a period of breathing space to shape and carry out proposals, and to scrutinise the position of the company, its business and its assets. That pause creates room for careful assessment and orderly planning. The consequence of the moratorium (and any interim moratorium) is that proceedings, enforcement and other steps cannot be taken against the company or its property while it remains in force. Claims or actions may only be commenced or continued with the administrator’s consent or the court’s permission. For further detail on the moratorium and its impact, refer to Practice Note: The moratorium in administration. The process of applying to lift the moratorium Before issuing any application requesting the court’s permission to lift the stay, the applicant should first seek the administrator’s agreement. The administrator may consent,...

On 4 July 2025, the Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed challenges by Apple, Visa, Mastercard and Sony to the validity of commonly used funding arrangements that calculate a funder’s fee or return as a multiple of their outlay or costs in class actions and class action claims, a ruling expected to lift spirits across a funding sector seriously rocked by the Supreme Court’s PACCAR judgment and its effects. Macfarlanes LLP partner Malcolm Hitching said the outcome is significant because it recognises that collective proceedings are a necessary part of the legal landscape, that consumers do need protection, and that the Competition Appeal Tribunal is there to provide that protection. He observed that, had the Court of Appeal reached the opposite view, it would have been difficult to see how a funder could actually provide funding to a collective group of claimants. Sony and others had disputed whether litigation funding agreements, amended in response to a 2023 ruling by the top court, known as PACCAR, could be enforced....

Mercer highlighted three central problems: inadequate retirement saving, modest performance from long-term pots, and limited participation by savers. It called on policymakers to widen auto-enrolment in pension schemes and to lift the statutory minimum contribution rates. According to Mercer — one of the four operating subsidiaries within the global professional services firm Marsh McLennan Companies Inc. — such reforms would raise future retirees’ living standards and strengthen the UK’s economic resilience. Phil Parkinson, the firm’s UK head of wealth, voiced unease about the system’s current path, stressing that many are putting aside too little to secure a comfortable later life. ‘We are inching towards a cliff edge for pensions and long-term saving, yet there remains a chance to tackle these issues,’ Parkinson noted in the years ahead...

Trump approved the order on the evening of 20 February 2026, introducing a 10% levy due to apply from 24 February 2026 until 24 July 24 2026 under section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (TA 1974). Under this provision, the President may impose a baseline tariff of up to 15% on every country for no more than 150 days, unless Congress authorises a longer period. Many classes of products are carved out from the section 122 charge, covering imports already facing particular sectoral duties, plus items not widely produced at home, including food, books and textiles, per a White House fact sheet. On 21 February 2026, Trump posted on Truth Social that he would promptly lift the Section 122 tariff to the statutory ceiling of 15%, immediately and in full as announced there...

This Practice Note This Practice Note examines the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980) and sets out the periods within which claimants are permitted to start different kinds of claims. As a rule, any proceedings begun after the relevant limitation window has ended will be statute-barred, affording the defendant a complete defence. It further describes, for personal injury matters, the general principles on when time begins to run, the notion of date of knowledge, and when a court may lift the limitation bar. It also contains a practical checklist of personal injury actions that sit outside the standard three-year time limit. LA 1980 prescribes the statutory deadlines within which claimants may pursue various categories of claims. Those limits define the period within which such claims must properly be started. Broadly, a defendant will enjoy a full defence to any proceedings issued (see further below: ‘When is a claim brought?’) after the expiry of the applicable period. Once the pertinent time limit has elapsed, the claim is treated as statute-barred. The...

CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this archived case hub captures the position as at the judgment dated 12 December 2019; it is no longer maintained. See also the timeline, commentary, and related/relevant cases for further details. Case facts Outline Case C‑435/18 Otis Gesellshaft m.b.h. and Others v Land Oberösterreich and Others – a national judicial reference from Austria seeking clarification on whether various lift manufacturers should face damages claims by an Austrian local council on the basis that their cartel conduct increased the cost of its loans to construction companies. Latest developments On 12 December 2019, the Court of Justice handed down its judgment. The Court of Justice confirmed and clarified that, under Article 101 TFEU, persons who are neither suppliers nor customers on a market affected by a cartel may obtain compensation for loss caused by that cartel. Parties Otis Gesellshaft m.b.h. Land Oberösterreich Market The market for the supply of lifts and escalators in Austria’s territory....

Negotiation Guide This Negotiation Guide sits within the Practical lease negotiation collection. See also Practice Note: New starter guide—entering into new commercial leases. An alterations clause sets out how far (if at all) a tenant may undertake alterations to the demised premises. Contemporary commercial leases usually separate alterations into: prohibited alterations alterations allowed with the landlord’s consent alterations allowed without the landlord’s consent If, unusually, the lease contains no alteration restrictions, the tenant may carry out any alterations to the demised premises. More often, commercial leases impose a general ban on alterations, with carve-outs for defined categories of works (eg internal non-structural changes) that may proceed either with, or without, the landlord’s prior consent. Drafting by exception in this manner helps to minimise confusion and reduce the risk of future disputes. The scope of permitted alterations—and any conditions attached to them—is shaped by the nature of the premises, the duration of the lease and the landlord’s plans for...

CASE NO: [ insert case number ] [ WITHIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES, INSOLVENCY AND COMPANIES LIST (ChD); ALTERNATIVELY, AT THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS IN [ insert location ], INSOLVENCY AND COMPANIES LIST (ChD); OR AT COUNTY COURT SITTING AT [ insert location ], BUSINESS AND PROPERTY WORK ] BEFORE [DEPUTY] INSOLVENCY AND COMPANIES COURT JUDGE...

Application notice in insolvency proceedings (corporate) Insolvency Act Application Notice Note: Use this precedent alongside an application notice template compliant with the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016, SI 2016/1024—see (Form IAA) IR 2016, r1.35 VAR Insolvency Act Application Notice... Case no: [insert case number] Court: [select the appropriate High Court listing and location, or County Court at [location], Business and Property Work] In the matter of: [insert company’s name] and the Insolvency Act 1986 Parties: [Applicant] v [Respondent(s)] Statutory basis: paragraph 43 [relevant sub‑section] of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 Applicant/Respondent details: [names and addresses] Company details: [subject of the proceedings] Judge level and venue: [identify judge] in [court or hearing centre] Within existing insolvency proceedings: YES/NO; court reference: [insert] Relief sought: Permission for [Applicant] to commence [describe claim, e.g. repossession of goods] against [company] (in administration) under paragraph 43 [sub‑section] Schedule B1. Costs against the...

Date: [ insert date ] From: [ insert name and job title ] Fair competition serves both businesses and consumers. It highlights where companies must improve and spurs organisations to pursue greater efficiency, foster innovation, lift productivity and, ultimately, become stronger businesses. 1 What is competition law compliance? Competition law exists to protect businesses and consumers from anti-competitive behaviour and to preserve effective competition in the markets in which they operate. Every business must comply, and breaches can bring serious consequences for companies and individuals, including substantial fines, prison sentences, director disqualifications and reputational harm. 2 How does this affect us? For [ insert organisation name ], competition law may arise in three principal contexts: cartel activity; other potentially anti-competitive agreements; abuse of a dominant position. Cartel activity Cartels are the most serious kind of anti-competitive agreement, where two or more businesses agree not to compete with one another...