Mb meaning

In this issue: Practice and procedure Financial provision Private children Public children International children LexTalk®Family: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Updated content New Q&As New legislation Useful information Practice and procedure UKSC Deputy President gives speech on the law and AI On 30 November 2023, Lord Hodge, Deputy President of the Supreme Court, delivered an address at De Montfort University, Leicester, on the relationship between the law and artificial intelligence (AI). He underlined the imperative to reshape legal rules to recognise and regulate emerging technologies, and pointed to the opportunities these innovations offer to strengthen both the legal and justice systems. See: LNB News 03/01/2024 44. Survivors of domestic abuse and their lived experiences with temporary ‘safe’ accommodation in England The Office for National Statistics has released qualitative research examining survivors’ experiences of accessing, living in, and moving on from temporary ‘safe’ accommodation in England. MoJ...

In this issue: Practice and procedure Emergency procedures Public children Private children Financial provision International children Daily and weekly news alerts Updated content Useful information Practice and procedure Family Procedure Rules 2010 Practice Direction Update No 2 of 2025 The second Practice Direction Update to the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010) in 2025 has now been published. It revises FPR 2010, PD 36ZA and introduces a further Practice Direction, FPR 2010, PD 36ZI, which will take effect on 14 July 2025. The new Practice Direction, FPR 2010, PD 36ZI, augments FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, r 36.2 (Transitional Arrangements and Pilot Schemes) to support a pilot for notifying the police whenever the court makes, varies, or extends a relevant non-molestation order. Under the pilot, notification to the police will be delivered by automated electronic means or by email once a relevant non-molestation order has been made. Consequential amendments to FPR 2010, PD 36ZA remove,...

In this issue: International arbitration Institutional and ad hoc arbitration Other arbitration and ADR-related news and developments LexTalk®Arbitration: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Useful information International arbitration Singapaore—anti-suit injunction in support of arbitration In CMC v (1) DOW (2) MB, the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) granted an anti‑suit injunction (ASI) to halt overseas proceedings brought to contest an arbitral tribunal’s decision. Singapore was the seat of the arbitration, and the Singapore courts had exclusive authority to determine any such challenge. Setting out the principles governing ASIs, the court concluded the criteria were fulfilled and there was no convincing reason to withhold relief on the facts. Although the defendant had links to a foreign government, it was not entitled to sovereign immunity because it was a ‘separate entity’ and the contract was a ‘commercial transaction’. See News Analysis: Anti‑suit injunction in support of arbitration (CMC v (1) DOW (2)...

ARCHIVED: This tracker is archived and no longer updated. For an overview of Court of Protection cases from 2025 onwards, see: Court of Protection—table of cases. P, Re (Property & Affairs Deputyship: Jurisdiction) [2024] EWCOP 77 (T2) Court of Protection determines it has jurisdiction to consider whether P’s mother should continue as property and affairs deputy The proceedings related to P, an adult who sustained a brain injury in an accident and had a substantial personal injury claim. His mother had been appointed by the Court of Protection as his property and affairs deputy, and the present decision addressed an application seeking to revoke that appointment. The litigation had been protracted. Earlier, the court permitted ‘closed material’ to be withheld from P’s parents to facilitate capacity assessments; for a summary of that ruling, see here. Despite that step, neither the Official Solicitor nor the court gained clarity about P’s condition or even his location. It was reported that P was now residing in Italy. HHJ Burrows concluded that...

ARCHIVED : This case tracker is archived and is no longer actively maintained. It presents a catalogue of notable pensions judgments delivered in 2017 by the courts. The entries in this tracker are arranged by subject. Those subjects appear in the Table of Contents (on the left side of the page), set out there. This Practice Note includes citations to case law from the Court of Justice of the European Union. In general, EU judgments issued on or before 31 December 2020 remain binding on UK courts and tribunals (even where the EU courts later depart from them) until the UK courts exercise their powers to diverge. For the most part, EU case law produced after that date is not binding on the UK, though UK courts and tribunals may still have regard to EU judgments where relevant. For fuller information on the approach to EU case law, see Practice Note: Retained EU law and assimilated law...

ARCHIVED : This case tracker has been archived and is not maintained. It includes a catalogue of notable pensions rulings issued in the year 2018. Items in this tracker are arranged by subject area. Those subjects are set out in the Table of Contents (to the left of the page). This tracker also cites decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union. In broad terms, EU decisions delivered on or before 31 December 2020 continue to be binding on UK courts and tribunals (even where the EU courts subsequently depart from them) until the UK courts use their powers to diverge. In general terms, EU case law created after that date is not binding on the UK, though the UK courts and tribunals may still 'have regard to' EU decisions if relevant. For further detail and background on the handling of EU case law, see Practice Note: Retained EU law and assimilated law...