Main proceedings meaning

Checklist This Checklist offers guidance on witness evidence supporting an application for pre-action disclosure under CPR Part 31.16, in situations where the applicant and respondent are likely to become parties to later proceedings. It also identifies the main matters to include within the witness statement, together with cross-references, points on costs, and exhibits where relevant...

What this checklist covers This checklist identifies the principal matters a solicitor advising a first time issuer should review and, where appropriate, propose amendments to when considering an English law trust deed for a debt securities issue. It applies to trust deeds for both secured and unsecured debt securities. It should be read alongside Practice Note: Trust deed—first time issuer's guide, which explains: the advantages and disadvantages of appointing trustees in debt capital markets transactions and the nature of the relationship between an issuer and a trustee, and the practical aspects of the main provisions commonly included in trust deeds for debt capital markets transactions Although the terms and conditions of the debt securities being issued will be set out in an annex to the trust deed, this checklist does not cover terms and conditions—these are addressed in Terms and conditions—first time issuer's negotiation checklist and Practice Note: Terms and conditions—first time issuer's guide. References are made to provisions by their usual...

Practical and logistical Preparing for an in-person arbitration hearing involves numerous practical and logistical factors that must be anticipated, arranged and, frequently, costed. This Checklist is designed to confirm the main elements of a hearing are addressed early, helping the process run as smoothly as possible. It aims to ensure key aspects are weighed in advance so arrangements can be planned carefully and budgeted in good time and with clarity. The Checklist is not comprehensive and does not, for example, cover many legal questions that might be relevant before and during an arbitration hearing. It focuses on the needs of in-person merits hearings rather than in-person procedural hearings, though several points will apply to both formats. It also assumes that private practitioners will take a leading role in pre-hearing preparation, which may not always be the case. Certain matters considered in the Checklist will be organised by one or more parties for the benefit of all parties (eg transcription or interpretation services), so it is important to agree how...

K&J Townmore Construction Ltd v Damien Keogh [2023] IEHC 509 A High Court ruling in K&J Townmore Construction Ltd v Damien Keogh [2023] IEHC 509 is welcome news to many within Ireland’s construction industry. A party sought leave to pursue judicial review of an adjudicator’s decision under the Construction Contracts Act 2013, but the application was refused. That refusal ensures the Act will continue to operate as a practical and useful mechanism for resolving disputes in the construction industry in Ireland, preserving the intended effectiveness of adjudication... Townmore, Cobec’s main contractor, asked the High Court for permission to judicially review the appointment of the adjudicator, Mr Keogh (the Adjudicator). The Adjudicator considered that he had jurisdiction to determine a dispute between Townmore and Cobec under the Construction Contracts Act 2013. Despite Townmore’s assertion that the issue was not a ‘payment dispute’ within section 6(1) of the Act, Mr Keogh refused to resign. Townmore argued that it would be inequitable to wait until the adjudication had run its course...

In this issue: General Election 2024 Trade marks/passing off Patents Copyright & associated rights General IP IP and technology LexTalk®IP: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information General Election 2024 General Election 2024—parliamentary process, wash-up and manifesto pledges This News Analysis brings together cross-practice coverage of the 2024 General Election. It features contributions from practice area specialists, Practical Guidance, news, analysis and journal pieces. For IP, the package also reviews the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024—parts of which commenced on 24 May 2024 during the wash-up—and sets out the main parties’ manifesto commitments. It further examines AI regulation and the potential impact of those pledges in this sphere. See News Analysis: General Election 2024—parliamentary process, wash-up and manifesto pledges... Trade marks/passing off AI Trade Mark Tussle: ‘Builder’ non-distinctive in the ‘no-code’ app building space (Engineer.ai...

CNO Plant Hire Ltd v Caldwell Construction Ltd [2024] EWHC 2188 (TCC) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling spotlights the boundaries on using set-off at the enforcement stage. The main practical points are: Adjudication enforcement The court reaffirmed that adjudicators’ decisions should usually be enforced promptly and summarily, despite factual or legal errors, provided the adjudicator had jurisdiction and there was no breach of natural justice It again confirms adjudication’s speed and effectiveness as a construction dispute tool, helping to keep cash flow uninterrupted Set-off restrictions The judgment makes clear that set-off against an adjudicator’s decision will not be permitted unless strict conditions are satisfied If set-off is sought based on a counter-adjudication decision, separate enforcement proceedings must be commenced, highlighting the need for a careful legal strategy where multiple adjudications arise Jurisdiction challenges Jurisdictional objections to adjudication decisions must be clearly articulated and properly pursued...

There are statutory rules governing a company’s auditor liability and the extent to which it can be curtailed. Before 6 April 2008, a company was prohibited from excusing or indemnifying its auditors for any negligence, default, breach of duty, or breach of trust connected with the company that arose in carrying out the audit of the accounts. That prohibition has since changed, and such protection is now allowed, so long as it is either an indemnity covering the costs of successfully defending proceedings or a liability limitation agreement. Furthermore, additional requirements concerning an auditor’s liability and its caps may apply to a listed company, an AIM company, or a company whose securities are listed on the AQSE Main Market, AQSE Growth Market, or AQSE Trading (previously the NEX Exchange Main Board, NEX Exchange Growth Market, and NEX Exchange Secondary Market), though those matters fall outside the ambit of this Practice Note. Some or all of the statutory measures addressing auditors and liability limitation agreements may equally extend to other companies...

This Practice Note outlines legal professional privilege (LPP) in Scottish civil litigation. It should be read alongside Practice Note: Privilege in Scotland—general principles, which sets out the two main categories of legal professional privilege: legal advice privilege (LAP) and litigation privilege (LP), and also refers to without prejudice privilege, waiver of privilege and common interest privilege. For the position in England and Wales, see: Privilege and without prejudice communications—overview and Practice Note: Privilege—general principles which, in addition to providing an overview, link to more detailed guidance on aspects of LPP. Key: FOI—freedom of information LAP—legal advice privilege LP—litigation privilege LPP—legal professional privilege Accessing privileged material in Scottish civil litigation In Scotland, several mechanisms enable recovery of otherwise privileged documents or communications, either within proceedings or outwith the court process, including: section 1 of the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1972 (AJ(S)A 1972) commission and diligence Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FI(S)A 2002) ...

This Practice Note considers case management on the fast track of civil claims that are issued on or after 1 October 2023. The rules for case management and directions on the fast track differ depending upon whether proceedings were issued before or after 1 October 2023. The main provisions governing fast track case management are found in CPR 26, CPR PD 26, CPR 28 and CPR PD 28, and those provisions were amended with effect from 1 October 2023. This Practice Note deals only with the case management of fast track claims in civil proceedings issued on or after 1 October 2023. For information on how fast track claims issued before 1 October 2023 are managed, see Practice Note: Fast track—case management—position before 1 October 2023. Note, however, that for personal injury claims the applicable rules vary according to the date on which the cause of action accrues, and for disease claims by reference to when the first letter of claim was sent. For those claims, the rules set...

Dear [ insert name of costs draftsman ] Re: [ Client’s name ] Address: [ Insert address ] Date of Birth: [ Insert date of birth ] Date of Accident: [ Date ] Claim Number: [ insert from N1 claim form ] We write in relation to the above matter. This claim relates to [ insert brief details of case ]. Proceedings were commenced on [ date ] and served on [ date ]. We expect the main issues to include: [ Insert details ] 1 Incurred costs For particulars of incurred costs, please refer to the fee notes and the file attached. We have secured the following evidence: Breach of duty evidence: [ Insert details of expert evidence ] Causation evidence: [ Insert details of expert evidence ] Condition and prognosis evidence: [ Insert details of expert evidence ] Witness statements: [ Insert details of witnesses ] Additional supporting evidence: [ Insert details ]...

For information: on information and consultation duties under the Transfer of Employment (Protection of Employees) Regulations 2006 (TUPE 2006), SI 2006/246, see Practice Note: TUPE—information and consultation on TUPE protection from dismissal, see Practice Note: TUPE—protection against dismissal on unfair dismissal claims generally, see Practice Note: Entitlement to claim unfair dismissal on reasons that make a dismissal automatically unfair (no qualifying period), see Practice Note: Automatically unfair reasons and Checklist—unfair dismissal claims requiring no minimum qualifying period A dismissal is automatically unfair under ERA 1996, s 104(1) where the reason, or main reason, is that the employee brought proceedings to enforce, or alleged an infringement of, a relevant statutory right. The two-year qualifying period does not apply where s 104(1) (read with ss 104(2)-(3)) applies (s 108(3)(g)). Relevant statutory rights appear in s 104(4), including rights conferred by TUPE 2006 (s 104(4)(e)). It does not matter whether the right exists or has in fact been breached, provided: the...