Powered by Lexis+®
Jurisdiction(s):
United Kingdom
CASE STUDY

“It's hard to quantify, right now. But at a guess, I'd say it's probably more than 50% faster, at times. It's literally that quick. We've found to be an essential practical tool. We're very satisfied.”

Walsall Council

Access all documents on Parties

Parties meaning

What does Parties mean?
In legal practice, Parties describes the persons or entities who assume rights and obligations under a contract or are named in proceedings. In this agreement, Parties means the Seller and the Buyer; Party means either the Seller or the Buyer, as the context requires. The term is a descriptive label used across contract, corporate, property and litigation contexts rather than a defined statutory concept. Typical drafting identifies the Parties at the start of the agreement and may extend the term to their successors, permitted assigns and group companies if expressly stated. Parties are distinct from third parties or affiliates who do not sign the contract, unless third‑party rights are created. Usage is broadly consistent across England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland. Third‑party rights may arise under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 (England and Wales and Northern Ireland) or the Contract (Third Party Rights) (Scotland) Act 2017; in Ireland, common‑law privity generally applies unless legislation or clear drafting provides otherwise. In disputes, Parties refers neutrally to the contracting counterparties (for example, claimant/pursuer and defendant/respondent).
Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business–all whilst saving time and reducing risk.

View the related Checklists about Parties

CHECKLISTS
Freezing injunctions in corporate and personal insolvency: step-by-step checklist for urgent applications, evidence, model orders, undertakings, WFOs, disclosure and enforcement (England and Wales)

Introduction to freezing injunctions and scope of this checklist A freezing injunction (also known as a freezing order) is a temporary court order that prevents a respondent from disposing of or transferring its assets out of the relevant jurisdiction—namely England and Wales—or, in the case of a worldwide freezing order (WFO), from moving them anywhere in the world. The court’s principal aim in granting such relief is to preserve the respondent’s assets so that, if the applicant later obtains judgment against the respondent, there will be assets available for recovery by the applicant and, if necessary, enforcement action. This Checklist explains how to make an application for a freezing injunction where claims are contemplated or already underway in a corporate or personal insolvency context. As the precise circumstances of each matter must be assessed, this Checklist does not claim to be exhaustive; rather, it provides an overview of the key considerations at each stage when seeking an order of this kind. The focus throughout is asset preservation pending determination...

Read More Right Arrow
CHECKLISTS
Design licence agreements: drafting and negotiation checklist for licensors and licensees

How to use this Checklist This Checklist flags issues that frequently emerge when negotiating and drafting the following agreement types: Design licence—pro-licensor Design licence—pro-licensee For further reading on design licensing, see these Practice Notes: Introduction to designs UK registered and unregistered designs Licensing intellectual property rights For example character merchandising agreements, consult the Precedents: Character merchandising agreement—pro-licensor and Character merchandising agreement—pro-licensee. For details of the key terms commonly found in a manufacturing agreement and designs licence, see: Manufacturing agreement and design licence—checklist. This Checklist can also, where appropriate, operate as the foundation for a straightforward non-binding heads of terms. For guidance on doing so, see Precedent: Heads of terms—commercial contracts. For support on negotiating an IP licence clause, refer to Practice Note: Negotiation guide—intellectual property licence clause. Checklist schedule for proposed licence of designs Points to consider • Further information • Notes (if any) (A) Key commercial considerations...

Read More Right Arrow
CHECKLISTS
Administrative Court judicial review: CPR Part 54 checklist on time limits, promptness and applications to extend claim forms and acknowledgements of service (England and Wales)

This Checklist sets out the principal procedural steps and considerations for parties preparing or answering a request to extend time in judicial review claims before the Administrative Court. It should be read alongside Practice Note: Judicial review time limits—extensions and urgent cases. Time limits for bringing claims and the requirement to act 'promptly' Where proceedings are started in the High Court, the claim form must be lodged promptly and, in any case, no later than three months from the date the grounds first arose, subject to the shorter periods below: challenges to planning decisions must be issued within six weeks of the date the grounds to bring the claim first arose challenges to procurement decisions under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 must be brought within 30 days of the date the grounds to bring the claim first arose...

Read More Right Arrow

View the related Flowcharts about Parties

FLOWCHARTS
Data Subject Requests to Restrict Processing under the UK GDPR and DPA 2018: Practitioner Flowchart on Grounds, Exemptions, Refusals and Third-Party Notifications

This diagram mirrors HMRC’s Flowchart 4, set out at paragraph 5.24 of the Guidance Note on residence, domicile and the remittance basis (RDR1). It is for use when a taxpayer clearly plans to depart the UK in the future...

Read More Right Arrow
FLOWCHARTS
UK GDPR right to erasure: practitioner flowchart covering grounds, exemptions, necessary processing and notification duties (DPA 2018; ICO guidance; DUAA 2025 update)

Flowchart This Flowchart helps determine which stamp duty land tax (SDLT) provisions are relevant on a lease renewal where a tenant remains in occupation by ‘holding over’ after a fixed-term lease ends. It should be considered together with the fuller Practice Note: SDLT—holding over. The SDLT provisions governing situations where a tenant holds over a lease, and that lease is subsequently renewed, are intricate and often complex...

Read More Right Arrow
FLOWCHARTS
Unopposed business tenancy renewal under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954: notices, statutory periods and Part 8 procedure (England and Wales)

Under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954), a business lease carries on automatically after the end of the contractual term if the tenant remains in occupation for business purposes. Either party can bring those statutory rights to an end by serving one of the prescribed termination notices. This flowchart explains the steps for an unopposed business lease renewal under the LTA 1954. For the procedure where renewal is opposed, see: LTA 1954 opposed lease renewal procedure—flowchart. For further detail on LTA 1954 security of tenure and the court process, consult Practice Notes: LTA 1954 business lease renewal—proceedings and LTA 1954 business lease renewal—termination. Note 1 Diarise a date at least 12–18 months before the contractual expiry of the existing lease. See Practice Note: LTA 1954 business lease renewal—termination. Note 2 Information must be supplied within one month of service of the notice. A party is obliged to correct any information provided for six months after receiving the notice. This applies to both parties equally...

Read More Right Arrow

View the related News about Parties

NEWS
EU competition: CJEU rejects price parity clauses as ancillary; AG backs assignment of damages claims; UK CFC State aid decision annulled; Commission brief on generative AI; DMA Apple steps

Antitrust Court of Justice issues judgment in national reference from the Netherlands proposing that parity clauses are not ancillary restrictions for the purposes of EU competition law The Court of Justice has delivered its judgment in Case C- 264/23 Booking,com BV and Booking.com (Deutschland) GmbH v 25hours Hotel Company Berlin GmbH and Others, concerning a Dutch reference seeking clarification on whether wide and narrow parity clauses are ancillary restraints under Article 101(1) TFEU. The reference seeks guidance on their classification within EU competition rules under Article 101(1) of TFEU. Background Booking.com BV runs an online hotel reservation platform. Up to 2015, its agreements contained wide price parity obligations that stopped hotels from advertising cheaper room rates via their own direct channels and any other outlets, including rival online travel agencies (OTAs). Thereafter, Booking.com moved to narrow price parity undertakings, which bar hotels from offering lower prices through their direct sales channels; the Federal Court of Justice of Germany nonetheless held these also restrict competition. Booking.com and other...

Read More Right Arrow
NEWS
English Commercial Court refuses permission to amend to add s 67 BIT challenge as time-barred under AA 1996 s 73; nationality arguable but for lack of reasonable diligence.

The Czech Republic v Diag Human SE and another [2024] EWHC 708 (Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? The judgment offers practical guidance on how the ‘reasonable diligence’ condition in AA 1996, s 73(1) operates. It warns parties in arbitration to remain vigilant to unfolding factual matters that may demand further enquiry, in order to satisfy the ‘reasonable diligence’ requirement and maintain an arguable case that is not rendered time-barred under AA 1996, s 73(1). It also emphasises the elevated duty of care owed by investment arbitration practitioners when advising clients in arbitral proceedings, so as to avoid claims of insufficient diligence in the conduct of jurisdictional challenges before the tribunal. What was the background? ...

Read More Right Arrow
NEWS
UK employment law update: tribunal limits, SSP/SMP rises, neonatal leave, ERB progress, Skilled Worker immigration changes, DEI pay gap consultation, key cases and April 2025 changes (20 March 2025)

In this issue: Horizon scanning Worker status and categories Immigration Pay Remuneration Taxation Diversity and the gender pay gap Maternity, parents and carers Whistleblowing Data protection and staff information Confidentiality, obligations and restrictions: enforcement Financial services and banking: employment matters Bribery, modern slavery, tax evasion and fraud Issues arising on termination Employment Tribunals Civil courts and alternative dispute resolution Dates for your diary Trackers Employment resources on Lexis+® LexTalk® Employment: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Horizon scanning Updated Employment Rights Bill to be considered by the House of Lords The updated Employment Rights Bill (ERB), transmitted from the House of Commons to the House of Lords, was issued on 14 March 2025. Its second reading in the House of Lords is scheduled for 27 March 2025...

Read More Right Arrow

View the related Practice Notes about Parties

PRACTICE NOTES
UK FCA DTR 1–1C: application, post‑Brexit and 2024 listing reforms, MAR interplay, audit committees, misleading disclosures and related party rules

This Resource Note spotlights commentary, analysis and materials to aid interpretation and give practical guidance on applying Chapters 1, 1A, 1B and 1C of the Disclosure Guidance and Transparency Rules: DTR 1, DTR 1A, DTR 1B and DTR 1C respectively. Materials referenced here include, where pertinent: the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) Handbook FCA Knowledge Base guidance—Procedural notes and Technical notes (constituting formal guidance and binding on the FCA) FCA consultation papers, discussion papers, policy statements, feedback statements and warnings Primary Market Bulletins and other FCA publications former UKLA technical and procedural notes and the UKLA newsletter List!, where still relevant to interpreting or applying a provision assimilated EU legislation EU Directives and EU Regulations, where relevant to interpreting a provision Lexis+ UK analysis and resources Setting the scene What it covers: DTR 1 sets out the Disclosure guidance, explaining its scope and purpose; DTR 1A sets out the transparency rules with their scope and purpose;...

Read More Right Arrow
PRACTICE NOTES
EU General Court upholds Commission’s re-adopted decision on retail food packaging trays cartel: CCPL v Commission—parental liability, 10% cap per infringement and inability-to-pay rejected

CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the judgment of 7 December 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Appeal before the General Court seeking annulment of the Commission’s readopted infringement decision of 17 December 2020, which imposed a reduced fine amounting to €9.4m (AT.39563). Latest development On 7 December 2022, the General Court delivered its judgment and dismissed the appeal in full. In particular, it found that: (i) CCPL grasped the Commission’s reasoning, and the material presented by CCPL was insufficient to overturn the presumption applied by the Commission that CCPL exercised decisive influence over entities within the CCPL group; and (iii) the Commission did not err in concluding that a fine reduction can only be warranted by the aim of preventing the undertaking’s economic viability from being irreparably endangered and its assets stripped of value, so the applicant’s intention to develop operating companies of the CCPL group cannot, in principle, justify such...

Read More Right Arrow
PRACTICE NOTES
Trust jurisdiction clauses: construction, scope and enforceability against beneficiaries, drafting guidance, and the 'forum for administration' pitfall

Context Jurisdiction clauses frequently appear in commercial contracts and are typically framed as either: Exclusive jurisdiction clauses (see Practice Note:Jurisdiction agreements—exclusive jurisdiction agreements) Non-exclusive jurisdiction clauses (see Practice Note: Jurisdiction agreements—non-exclusive jurisdiction agreements) Where parties have chosen an exclusive jurisdiction term, the default position is that the English court will ordinarily ‘exercise its discretion… to secure compliance with the contractual bargain’. Such provisions now appear ever more often in trust instruments. Nevertheless, several questions arise concerning: the drafting of such clauses the areas to be covered by such clauses the interpretation and effects of such clauses Two examples of jurisdiction clauses As presently encountered, trust jurisdiction provisions create a series of connected issues, including how they are drafted, what they should cover, and how they are interpreted and what they achieve. Before considering their operation, it is useful to look at a couple of typical illustrations: a Jersey law...

Read More Right Arrow

View the related Precedents about Parties

PRECEDENTS
Insolvency Act application notice precedent to fix an office-holder’s remuneration under IR 2016 r 18.23 in liquidation or administration (England and Wales)

INSOLVENCY ACT APPLICATION NOTICE Case No: [ insert case number ]. Court: High Court (Business and Property Courts, Insolvency and Companies List (ChD)) OR Business and Property Courts in [ insert location ] OR County Court at [ insert location ] (Business and Property Work). In the matter of [ insert company’s name ] and the Insolvency Act 1986. Parties: [ Insert Applicant(s) ] v [ Insert Respondent(s) ]. Under IR 2016 r 18.23. Parties and addresses: Applicants [ names/addresses ]; Respondents [ names/addresses ]. Application relates to [ details ]. Judge: [ level ]. Venue: [ court/hearing centre ]. Ref: [ number ]. Orders sought: Fix remuneration at £[ insert sum ] plus VAT; disbursements £[ insert sum ]. Costs to be an expense of the [ liquidation/administration ]. Any further order or relief the court considers appropriate. Grounds: witness statement of [ name ], dated [ date ]. Service/notice: [ names/addresses, if any, or none ]. Address for...

Read More Right Arrow
PRECEDENTS
Settlement agreement precedent (Scotland) for civil court or arbitration disputes, including release, agreement not to sue, confidentiality and joint minute

This Agreement is dated [ date ] Parties [ insert name of the pursuer ], a company registered in Scotland (no [ insert company number ]), whose [ registered office OR principal place of business ] is at [ insert address ] (the Pursuer) [ and ] [ ; ] [ insert name of defender ], a company registered in Scotland (no [ insert company number ]), whose [ registered office OR principal place of business ] is at [ insert address ] (the Defender). Each being a Party and, together, the Parties. Whereas (A) [ Insert details of the background to the dispute eg ‘The Parties entered into a contract for the supply of certain goods etc ]. (B) A dispute has emerged between the Parties regarding [ insert details of the dispute ] (the Dispute). (C) [ Proceedings were raised by the Pursuer against the Defender on [ date ] by way of [ Summons OR...

Read More Right Arrow
PRECEDENTS
Precedent Sterling term loan facility agreement (bilateral) for single corporate borrower, with optional security and/or parent guarantee (England and Wales)

This Agreement, dated [ • ] 20[ • ], is entered into between the following parties: Parties [ insert name of Borrower ], a company incorporated in England and Wales with registered number [ insert company number ], whose registered office is at [ insert address ] (the Borrower); and [ insert name of Lender ] of [ insert address ] (the Lender). Background (A) [ insert description of background to transaction ]. (B) The Lender has agreed to provide the Facility (as defined below) to the Borrower on the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement...

Read More Right Arrow

View the related Q&As about Parties

Q&As
Section 38 agreement: termination and bond release pre-commencement

Section 38 agreements These agreements fall under section 38 of the Highways Act 1980; refer to Practice Note: Highways—adoption agreements. There is no statutory route by which agreements can be ended or ‘cancelled’. However, a section 38 agreement may, in principle, be altered by a deed of variation, but this requires consent of all parties to the original agreement...

Read More Right Arrow
Q&As
Voluntary arrangement ending 3-year licence to occupy: occupier remedies

Lease or licence? In Street v Mountford, the House of Lords set out the core indicators of a tenancy. These focus on the substance of the arrangement rather than the label attached to it: exclusive possession of specified premises Although the payment of rent may suggest a tenancy, it is not essential. Whether the proposed arrangement is a lease or a licence turns on the agreement taken as a whole; where the parties in reality confer exclusive possession, that result cannot be avoided by calling the document something else. What counts is the essence of the bargain, not its outward form or chosen description. Even where the paperwork is properly framed at the outset as a true licence, the parties’ subsequent behaviour may alter the character of the arrangement so that a tenancy is later created. For further discussion, see Practice Note: Leases and licences of land—key features and differences, together with the commentary in Hill and Redman’s Division A from paragraph...

Read More Right Arrow
Q&As
Child maintenance capitalisation in a clean break consent order

Broadly, a capitalised maintenance order is intended to achieve a clean break, bringing to an end each party’s financial responsibilities owed to the other, both during life and on death, pursuant to the relevant statutory provisions of section 25A of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) See the Practice Notes: Capitalised maintenance—Duxbury calculations, and Financial clean break orders in family proceedings...

Read More Right Arrow